S. No. 16 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 594/2024 Mohammad Muzaffar Lone …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Faisal Javied, Advocate Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Bhat ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Abu Owais Pandit, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 25.11.2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record on file. 2. A complaint came to be filed before the Trial Court i.e., City Judge/ JMIC, Srinagar, by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Grievance in the complaint is that in discharge of his debt, the petitioner-accused issued a Cheque No. 614243 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said cheque when presented before the Bank was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds and stoppage of payment by the petitioner-accused. 4. After dishonor of cheque, complainant issued a notice demanding payment. Allegedly, despite service of the notice, the petitioner- accused did not make the payment within the stipulated period. Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court while taking cognizance of the complaint, issued process to the petitioner-accused, who appeared and, after recording his statement under Section 251 CrPC the Trial Court directed the petitioner-accused to adduce the evidence. Evidence was produced by the petitioner-accused, and at a later stage, he challenged the proceedings initiated before the Trial Court. 6. The main contention of the petitioner-accused is that the Trial Court, in violation of the procedure, directed him to adduce the evidence. He further contends that the alleged signature on cheque was forcibly taken at the police station and that he had not received the notice of demand. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after recording the statement under Section 251 CrPC, the Trial Court ought to have called upon the complainant to adduce evidence. The Trial Court instead of asking the complainant to produce the evidence directed the accused to produce evidence. As it would be clear from the record that when the accused was called upon for recording his statement under Section 251, he had stated that his signatures were taken forcibly at the Police Station and that he had not received notice of demand. 8. Service of notice of demand is pre-requisite for filing a complaint under Section 138, therefore, once service of the notice was denied, it is the responsibility of the complainant to prove that the notice of demand was issued and served upon the accused. The Trial Court ought to have directed the complainant to adduce evidence after recording the statement of the accused. The procedure adopted by the Trial Court, directing the accused to produce evidence, is therefore, not in accordance with law and is accordingly set-aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to the Trial Court, which shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 25.11.2025 Shabroz