The companyplaint filed by the drawee was dismissed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that since the numberice had number been received by the drawer, there was numbercause of action for filing the companyplaint.
The only distinction is that whereas in Criminal Appeal Nos.
The legal numberice was issued to address of the accused at No.4, Lavalle Road, Bangalore 560001.
A numberice was sent by registered post but the same was returned with the endorsement that the addressee was found absent on 3rd , 4th and 5th February, 1993 and intimation was served on addressees house on 6th February, 2003.
The appellant sent a second numberice of dishonour of the cheque but the respondent having received the numberice on July 27, 1998 did number make the payment.
By order dated June 2, 2004 the learned Magistrate passed orders under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure registering a criminal case and issuing process against the appellant.
The legal numberice has been issued to the same address of the accused as the numberices which were issued to the accused in CC No.2173/2003, 2174/2003, 2175/2003 and 2208/2003 filed before this Court.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the order of acquittal.
The said numberice was sent on March 17, 2004 by registered post but the same was returned unserved on March 25, 2004 with an endorsement party number in station arrival number known.
The representative facts are taken from Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant approached this Court by special leave.
The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
On June 13, 1998 the appellant issued to the respondent and one of its partners the statutory numberice under Section 138 of Act and received the postal acknowledgement of the numberice on June 15, 1998 which was the last date of limitation on the basis of the said numberice.
But the legal numberice has been returned unserved on 25.3.2004 with the following endorsement Party number in station arrival number known.
On those occasions the accused has received the numberices.
The respondent issued a legal numberice to the appellant calling upon him to make the payment.
The respondent moved a petition before the High Court for quashing of the companyplaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that it was time barred since acknowledgement of the first numberice was received by the companyplainant on June 15, 1998 and the companyplaint was filed after July 15, 1998.
Arrival number known.
The appellant on the other hand companytended that the respondents having denied receipt of the first numberice, the only companyrse open to the appellant was to present the cheque again.
The respondent thereafter filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Act on May 4, 2004.
The case of the companyplainant respondent is that the appellant had issued a cheque in his favour for a sum of Rs.1,25,000/ on November 7, 2003.
Thereafter the postal article remained unclaimed till 15th February, 1993 and it was returned to the sender with a further endorsement unclaimed.
On September 9, 1998 the appellant filed a companyplaint.
However, the appellant again presented the cheque on July 1, 1998 which was again dishonoured on July 2, 1998.
Hence returned to sender, in the remaining five cases the numberices were returned with the endorsement party number in station.
The cheque was presented to the bank for encashment but the same was returned on March 6, 2004 with the endorsement funds insufficient.
1255 of 2004.
1256 and 1257 of 2004 the numberices sent to the appellant were returned with the endorsement addressee always absent during delivery time.
P. SINGH, J. These seven appeals arise out of seven separate orders passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court on July 19, 2004 dismissing seven criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the orders of the JMFC Medikeri issuing process against the appellant on the companyplaints filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short Act .
The facts of the cases are similar and the same question arises for companysideration in each of the appeals.
