Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. At the time of discharge, the accused has taken the responsibility of clearing the medical bill of his father amounted to Rs.1,90,000/-. In that regard, the accused has issued two cheques bearing No.003632 dated 23-10- 2017 for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and bearing No.003629 dated 23-10-2017 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- both drawn on ICICI Bank, Yelahanka Branch, 2019-A, 3rd cross Sector B, Yelahanka New Town, Bangalore. The complainant had presented the said cheques for encashment through its banker, but same was returned with an endorsement "Funds Insufficient". Thereafter, the complainant got issued legal notice dated: 09-01-2018 to the accused by speed post. The said notice was served to the accused on 22-01-2019. In spite of one month's time the accused has not repaid the cheque amount. Accordingly, the accused has committed offence punishable under Sec.138 of N.I Act.

30. So far as the service of legal notice is concerned, it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that legal notice issued through Speed post is duly served to the accused on 22-01-2018 and having served the notice, the accused failed to give reply. The learned counsel for complainant at this juncture has referred judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2007) 6 SCC 555 between C.C Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed wherein it was observed by referring Sec. 138 (b) & (c) of the NI Act that "notice sent by registered post if returned un-served, presumption as to service of notice in such a case raises. There is no need to make averments in the complaint that the service of notice was evaded by the accused or that the accused had a role to ply in the return of notice un served. In view of Sec.27 of General Clauses Act and Sec.114 of Evidence Act, wherein it was held that "For raising presumption as to service of notice in the said situation as in view of S. 27, General Clauses Act and Sec.114, Evidence Act, once the notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. But complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of issuance of notice to the drawer. Mandatory requirement of issue of notice in terms of Sec. 138 proviso (b) stands complied with when the notice is sent in the said manner. However, the drawer can rebut the presumption of service of notice by showing that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or the letter was never tendered or the report of the postman was incorrect. Such interpretation would effectuate the object and purpose for which the proviso to S. 138 was enacted".

31. In the said case, no averment in complaint has been made that notice was sent to the correct address of the drawer of cheque by registered post, acknowledgment due. But returned envelop annexed to complaint showed the said fact. Hence held that the mandatory requirement of Sec. 138 had been sufficiently complied with .

32. Coming to the case in hand, the complainant has produced copy of the legal notice as per Ex.P7, postal receipt as per Ex.P8 and DTDC track consignment receipt as per Ex.P9. The PW.1 has pleaded ignorance whether legal notice is served to the accused or not. As observed supra, it is the case of the complainant that the legal notice is issued through speed post. Ex.P9 produced by the complainant is DTDC track consignment. DTDC track consignment is with respect to if any article is sent through courier. Speed post is a service offered by Indian Post whereas courier service are offered by Private companies like DHL, DTDC, FEDEX etc., Service of speed post can be tracked by using Indian Post Website or SMS or track consignment service. If Ex.P9 is perused, as observed supra, it is DTDC track consignment. The question of issuing DTDC track consignment for service of article would arise only if consignment is sent through courier. But as per the own case of complainant legal notice was sent through speed post but not through courier so as to produced Ex.P9. Further if Ex.P9 is carefully perused, in the Ex.P9 the name of the consigner is mentioned as "Roshan P Tariker from Goa and the name of the consignee is mentioned as M/s Nava Chethan Hospital, Bangalore. The name of the counsel for the complainant is "Roshan P Tariker". As per Ex.P9, the description of contents sent through courier was "DOX". From the aforesaid document it can be said that the counsel for complainant from Goa has sent some articles to the complainant hospital through courier and receipt for having served the article is produced before this court and marked as Ex.P9. Hence, it can be said that Ex.P9 is no way related to this case and the complainant tried to mis- guide the court to make it believe that legal notice is served to the accused. It is true that the complainant has produced copy of legal notice and postal receipt. But no document to prove that legal notice is served to the accused has been produced. It is true that if legal notice is sent through RPAD to the correct address of the accused then even if postal cover is returned with shara "Left the address" unclaimed, refused etc., presumption shall have to be drawn u/Sec. 27 of General Clauses Act regarding the due service of notice. But herein legal notice is sent not through RPAD but through speed post. Further complainant has not produced either un-served postal cover or track consignment report to let the court know whether legal notice is served to the accused or if not served for what purpose it has been returned etc