- (1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Both the petitions are interconnected, therefore they are decided by this common order.
(2.) A complaint has been filed against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which is sought to be quashed in these petitions. Two grounds have been agitated before this Court. One ground is that, no notice was received by the petitioner demanding payment of the money after the alleged dishonour of the cheque by the Bank. Second ground which is agitated before this Court is that, blank cheques had been given and even according to the complainant these cheques were given by way of security and were postdated, these cheques were given in the year 1997 and admittedly these cheques were presented to the Bank after the statutory period of six months. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.
(3.) Coming to the first argument, it has been stated by the complainant that notice has been sent through registered post as well as through certificate of posting and the notice sent through certificate of posting was received by the petitioner. This is a question of fact whether the notice has been received by the petitioner or not. On this ground the complaint cannot be quashed. There is no mode prescribed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for serving the notice, it is sufficient that the notice is served on the accused. In the present case whether the notice was sent or not is purely a question of fact which can be gone into during the trial.;