Datasets:

Sarvesh2003

/

Legal_audio_dataset_whisper_tts

like 0

At the outset, on the close scrutiny and appraisal of the original cheque in question marked as ex cw1a it clearly transpires that the same had been issued as per the above details.

Further, the cheque in question got dishonored vide returning memos dated 19.05.2018 with remarks funds insufficient marked as ex cw 1b.

Thus, one of the essential ingredients of section 138 i.e., that a person drew a cheque on an account maintained by him with the banker and that such a cheque when presented to the bank is returned by the bank unpaid, stands fulfilled.

Further, on a co-joint reading of the cheque in question ex cw 1a, return memo ex cw 1b, it also stands proved that cheque was presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date it was drawn.govind ram versus .

Alkarma page 1 of 24 on 8 june, 2023 22.05.2018 and dispatched vide postal receipts ex cw1d to ex cw1f.

Now, the accused has denied the receipt of legal notice. 29.

The honorable supreme court in k bhaskaran versus sankaran vaidhyan balan (1999) 7 scc 510 in para 18 observed thus ......giving notice in the context is not the same as receipt of notice.

Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment. It is for the payee to perform the former process i.e.

Giving, by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address..... 30.

Further, in para 24 of the above said judgment the honorable supreme court held that where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in section 27 of general clauses act could profitably be imported in such a case.