Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. According to him the notices issued for 2nd and 3rd addresses shown in cause title was delivered on the accused on 02.02.2018, and other notices issued to different addresses were returned as the accused managed the postal authority.

15. On the other hand, the accused specifically claimed notice has not been served to him, however, he did not pose any questions to the Pw.1with respect to addresses mentioned in the legal notice as well as the cause title of complaint, that the addresses specified by the complainant in the complaint as well as legal notice are incorrect or wrong addresses, however, in the examination chief the Dw.1 specifically stated that, the first address shown in Ex.P.3 legal notice is pertaining to the house of his father, but, he has no talking or good terms with his father as he married against to wish of his father, further, so far as second address is concern it is office address of his wife, 3 rd address it is residential address of his mother­in­law, so far as 4th address, it was his previous residential address, wherein he was residing there till April 2017, the C.C.No.54887/2018 5th address is his previous company address wherein he worked till September 2013, so, on these grounds, accused claims that the notice Ex.P.3 claimed by the complainant has not served on him.

17. Having considering the rival arguments with the materials on the record as per Ex.P.5 and 6 the notice was received form the address mentioned C.C.No.54887/2018 therein Ex.P.7, was returned unserved Ex.P.8 returned with the shara of left Ex.P.9 returned has intimation delivered, the Ex.P.10 and 11 the postal consignment discloses that the item delivered on 02.02.2018, but still the accused claims that the notice was not served, however, it is not of the case of the accused that the addresses shown in cause title as well as in the legal notice is a wrong address or incorrect address, so, has his stated in Ex.P.3 legal notices were issued to 5 different address, the first address admittedly belongs to the parental home as per Ex.P.5 the notice caused to the parental home of the accused was received by Vishwanth who is non other than the accused, but, it is not case of the accused that the signature found on Ex.P.5 acknowledgment its not belongs to him, further, the 5th address shown in legal notice i.e., Indian Products Pvt. Ltd., received by the wife of the accused, further in cross examination of the Dw.1 accused admitted that the writings in the Ex.P.12 i.e., name and address of him is correct and it was written by him only, however, he claims it was obtained forcibly in the Police station, but, it C.C.No.54887/2018 is not his case that, the first address shown in legal notice is incorrect or wrong address, however he claims it is his previous address, he was residing there in till 18 April 2017, so notice caused on 01.02.2018 Ex.P.8 addressed to very same address was returned with the shara left but not the address incorrect or false, so, once it is dispatched to known last correct address, it is presume to be served on the accused as per sec.27 of General Clauses Act, at this stage it is useful to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhaskaran Vs. Shankarn Vaidyan Balan and another, wherein his lordship as held that:

"Issuance of legal notice proper to the correct address if proved by the complainant then service of legal notice has to be presumed that it was served untill the contrary is proved".

Therefore as per shara Ex.P.8 the accused had left, but, not an incorrect address, therefore the C.C.No.54887/2018 decision relied by the accused can not come to his aid, because, in the said case the notice was not issued to the correct address, but here in this case the notice was issued to the correct address but accused claiming that he was residing there till April 2017 is not a ground to disbelieve the service of notice, the above principle also reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2002 Criminal Law journal 1926 in between Fakeerappa Vs. Siddalingappa, wherein it is held that, "The only requirement for the service of demand notice is that, the notice should have been sent to the correct address of the drawer, the expressions left", not known, not available in the house locked, shop closed are all synonymous, therefore if the address of the drawer is prove to be correct, even if the notice is returned with the remarks of left, the notice deemed to have been served on the drawer".