Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Per contra, ld. Counsel for accused argued that the cheque in question was issued for security purpose as the accused had purchased a car from the complainant. He further argued that the car was not registered in the name of complainant nor he was authorized by the original owner to enter into any SONIKA transaction with respect to that car. He further argued that no legal liability exist in favour of the complainant as the car was never transferred in the name of accused. He further argued that the accused had never received any legal 2022.03.28 16:11:45 +0530 demand notice and the complainant has deliberately sent the demand notice on incorrect address, despite having the original Aadhaar card of accused. He prayed that the accused be acquitted of the offence. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the order passed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal in Dewar Motors @ Dewesh Motors Vs. Uttam Bhuyia, the CC No. 5745/2020 Rahul Vs. Rajat Kaushik Page no.4/12 revision petition no.2680 of 2016.

21. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in R.L. Varma & Sons vs. PC Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8964, has observed as follows:

"22.Legal presumption of service of notice can only arise in case the notice is correctly addressed. If the notice is incorrectly addressed no legal presumption can arise..."

"24. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates the issuance of the statutory notice as a pre-condition to filing of a complaint. The cause of action to file a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only on issuance and service of statutory notice and failure of the accused to comply with the statutory notice. In the absence of service of statutory notice the cause of action would not accrue. Service of statutory notice would also include legal presumption of service if circumstances so warrant."
2022.03.28 16:12:35 +0530 the impugned order have convicted the petitioner."

22. Accordingly, if the legal demand notice bears the incorrect address of the Accused, no presumption under Section 27 of the General Clause Act, 1897 can be drawn and the requirement of sending a legal demand notice will stand CC No. 5745/2020 Rahul Vs. Rajat Kaushik Page no.10/12 unfulfilled.

24. Thus, it is evident from the above stated facts that the demand notice was sent on an incorrect address. Further, the complainant has failed to lead any evidence to show the reasons for his belief that the house number of the accused is 182 and not 162, despite having the original Aadhaar card of the accused.

CC No. 5745/2020 Rahul Vs. Rajat Kaushik Page no.11/12