TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Conviction overturned due to lack of legal notice proof in Negotiable Instruments Act case.</h1> <h3>Hari Prakash Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand, Kundan Yadav, s/o Yamuna Yadav</h3> Hari Prakash Singh Versus The State of Jharkhand, Kundan Yadav, s/o Yamuna Yadav - TMI Issues:- Conviction and sentencing under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Proof of service of legal notice- Interpretation of legal provisions regarding notice in criminal casesAnalysis:1. The case involved the conviction and sentencing of the petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on a complaint filed by OP No. 2 for issuing a cheque that was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. The petitioner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation.2. The central issue raised by the petitioner's counsel was whether a prosecution under section 138 can proceed without establishing the service of notice upon the accused. The complainant must prove the issuance of the cheque, its return unpaid, serving a notice providing 15 days to repay, and proof of service of the notice on the accused.3. Both trial and appellate courts noted the absence of proof of service of the legal notice dated 1st June 2012 upon the petitioner. The complainant contended that the notice was tendered as evidence, but no proof of service was produced. The learned counsel for OP No. 2 referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of notice in such cases.4. The Supreme Court's judgment highlighted the significance of giving notice and receiving it within 15 days of court summons in cases under section 138. The absence of proof of service, such as a postal receipt, raised doubts about the validity of the notice served. The failure to produce the postal receipt and cover to establish the correct address and postage further weakened the complainant's case.5. Considering the lack of essential facts to prove the offense under section 138, the High Court held the conviction and sentence of the petitioner as invalid. The court set aside the conviction and sentence awarded in the trial and modified by the appellate court, ultimately discharging the petitioner from the liability of the bail bonds.6. In conclusion, Criminal Revision No. 1471 of 2015 was allowed, and the order was directed to be transmitted to the concerned court through fax for necessary action. The judgment emphasized the importance of proving service of legal notices in cases under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to ensure a fair trial and uphold legal standards.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
