Two Courts Convicted Him. Neither Asked Whether The Notice Reached Him.
A cheque case conviction, affirmed on appeal, has been set aside in revision — and the order has been sent to every judicial officer in the State.
The Court held that no statutory notice as required by clause (b) of Section 138 was served on the accused, the complainant having admitted in cross-examination that the letter was received by someone who may be his son. The complainant also failed to satisfy the Court about the source of the funds she said she had lent. Both courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence and the law. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the petitioner acquitted.
- Service on a family member is not service. Clause (b) requires the notice to reach the drawer.
- Means still have to be shown. The complainant could not establish the source of the money lent.
- Concurrent findings are not an answer when both courts missed the same point.
- Circulated to every judicial officer in the State, which tells you how the Court viewed the error.
- Court
- High Court of Tripura at Agartala
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
- Citation
- Crl. Rev. P. No. 17 of 2026
- Case
- Crl. Rev. P. No. 17 of 2026
- Decided
- June 2026
- Outcome
- Revision allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, petitioner acquitted
The notice point
The petitioner asserted that no notice was served on him in accordance with law.
In cross-examination the complainant admitted receiving a letter from the post master from which it appeared that the notice had been received by one Abhijit Murasingh, who may be the petitioner's son.
Applying M.D. Thomas, the Court held the complainant had not complied with the requirement of notice under clause (b) of Section 138, and that the courts below had not considered this at all.
The source of the money
At the hearing, senior counsel for the complainant could not satisfy the Court on the points regarding the source of funds, resting instead on the concurrent findings of the two courts below.
That submission could not be accepted. The complainant failed to satisfy the Court about the funds required to advance the money to the accused, and the courts below failed to appreciate those facts and the law.
The order
Both courts below had failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly. Their judgments suffered from infirmities and were liable to be interfered with.
The revision was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the Sessions Judge affirming the Chief Judicial Magistrate's order were set aside and quashed, and the petitioner was discharged and acquitted. His bail bond stands discharged.
A copy of the order was directed to be circulated to all judicial officers of the State.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Is a Section 138 notice served if a family member receives it?
Not necessarily. Here the Court held there was no compliance with clause (b) where the notice was received by someone who may have been the accused's son.
Does the complainant have to prove where the money came from?
The Court treated the failure to satisfy it on the source of funds as a reason to set the conviction aside.
Defending a Section 138 case on the notice
- Establish who physically received the demand notice, and get it from the complainant in cross-examination.
- Put the postal records on record; the admission here came from a post office letter.
- Press the complainant on the source of the funds; capacity to lend is part of the case.
- Do not be deterred by concurrent findings where both courts missed the same point of law.
Source. High Court of Tripura at Agartala, Crl. Rev. P. No. 17 of 2026, decided June 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Tripura at Agartala and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in