Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Issue identical to the case on hand came up for consideration before the Apex Court, M.D. Thomas v. P.S.Jaleel and another , wherein it was also a case where the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial Court acquitted the accused and in appeal the High Court set-aside the order of acquittal, convicted the appellant and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court apart from directing the accused to pay the sum of Rs.1,20,000/-

to the complainant, in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Against the said order, a Special Leave was filed before the Apex Court. The main arguments advanced before the Apex Court was that the respondent did not serve notice upon the appellant as per the requirements of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was specifically submitted that service of notice on the appellants wife cannot be treated as compliance with the mandate of law. After referring to the provisions of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Apex Court held as under :

It appears that the judgment of the Apex Court in Alavi Haji case (4 supra) was not brought to the notice of the Court in M.D.Thomas case (3 supra). However, in Bhagwati Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan considered both the judgments and held as under:
In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the larger bench reference, there is hardly any room for any doubt that the onus on the holder of the cheque before launching a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act is only to the extent of sending the notice to the correct address of the drawer. Thereafter, the necessary consequences as enshrined in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would follow, as per which has to be presumed that the notice has been served on the addressed. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the notice, which was sent by the complainant was at the correct address of the accused. Who at the correct address receives the notice cannot be the control of the complainant. It would be too harsh and virtually an absurd proposition to require from the holder of the cheque to manage the affairs in such a fashion that the same is served on the addressee himself. It is only in order to avoid such situation that the Legislature enacted Section 27 of the General Clauses Act providing for presumption of service, even in cases, wherein the notice is not accepted by the addressee or cannot be served for various other reasons. As interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.C. Alva Haji's case, even a refusal to accept the notice has been considered to be a sufficient service upon the addressee. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then the same would lead to situation of absolute absurdity. Such an interpretation would be totally against the spirit of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The unscrupulous accused would then easily manipulate the affairs and have the acknowledgement of the notice signed by anybody apart from himself/herself and then try to take a shield of non-service of the notice for raising a defence that the notice was not served and thus proceedings are vitiated. This in the opinion of this Court cannot be correct interpretation of the legal requirements of the Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court whilst considering the case of M.D. Thomas (supra) was not made aware of the earlier Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of C.C. Alva Haji. Applying the law of precedents, the decision rendered by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji has to be considered to be holding field and to be laying down the correct position of law.