Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. Further Ex.P5, in Ex.P5 the spelling of Kattanayakahanhalli was corrected and once again written. If at all the notice has been sent to the wrong address certainly the postal authority has written the shara as wrong address or insufficient address. Apart from this, the court summons has been sent to the accused to the same address has been personally served to the accused. Accused counsel relied on the decision reported M.D Thomas V/s P.S Jaleel, wherein Apex Court has observed that notice served upon the wife of appellant and not the appellant and therefore there is no escape that the complainant has not complied the requirement of giving the notice in terms of clause (b) of proviso to Sec.138 of NI Act.

21. With due respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present case, the notice has been reported to be refused. Hence, the above said decision is not applicable to the present case as it differs in the factual matrix.

22. Further relied on the decision reported in Crl. Revision Petition 1015/2025 Shaju V/s Shalimar Hardwares Kattanamam, wherein Hon'ble High court of Kerala has relied on the earlier decision Thomas.M.D v/s P. Jalleel and others and come to the conclusion at para No.11 that " Therefore, the service of notice on the relative of the accused is not sufficient, especially when there is no evidence from the side of the complainant that the accused was aware of the service of notice on his relative. If there is no such evidence, it is to be presumed that the statutory notice under Sec.138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not served on the accused. The upshot of the above discussion is that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are to be set aside".