Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. It is further urged that the statutory requirement of service of demand notice, which is the sine qua non for the accrual of cause of action under Section 138 of 'the N.I.Act.,' has not been satisfied. The complainant relied upon a track consignment purportedly showing receipt on 05.01.2018, but that document was never marked as an exhibit. Instead, Exhibit P5 is a postal endorsement dated 08.03.2019, recording delivery of the registered article on 22.01.2018 "to mother of addressee." The reliance on this endorsement is wholly untenable, as the Petitioner's mother had expired on 04.09.2017, rendering such service a legal impossibility. The learned Trial Court's acceptance of this defective proof of service, and its consequent finding of compliance with the statutory notice requirement, is perverse and unsustainable. In the absence of valid service, the statutory preconditions under the proviso to Section 138 of 'the N.I.Act.,' stand unfulfilled, and the conviction cannot be maintained.

03.03.2026 Dr.YLR,J

8. The learned Counsel for Respondents would further contend that the statutory notice dated 30.12.2017 was duly issued to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount, and the postal track consignment marked as Ex.P5 evidences delivery of the said notice at the proper address. In terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for brevity 'the G.C.Act.,') once a notice is dispatched to the correct address, service is deemed to be effected unless rebutted by cogent evidence. The accused has not produced any credible material to dislodge this presumption. Mere assertions or fanciful explanations cannot suffice to rebut the statutory presumption. The learned Trial Court, therefore, rightly concluded that the complainant had complied with the mandatory requirements under Section 138(b) and (c) of 'the N.I.Act.,' and that the accused failed to tender payment within the stipulated period.

37. On the strength of the sworn affidavit filed by the complainant, the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram, took cognizance of the offence and registered the case as C.C.No.63/2018, later transferred and renumbered as C.C.No.112/2018 before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhimavaram. During trial, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P5, including the dishonoured cheque, return memo, legal notice, and postal track consignment. He further examined PW2 to corroborate the transaction. The accused, upon examination under Section 313 of 'the Cr.P.C.,' denied the incriminating circumstances and set up a defence that the cheque had been misappropriated by one Naga Sailaja. However, no defence evidence was adduced. Thus, the factual substratum before the learned Trial Court comprised the complainant's assertion of a legally enforceable debt, the dishonour of the cheque, and the alleged service of statutory notice, juxtaposed against the accused's bare denial and plea of misuse of a blank cheque.

39. In the table of the list of documents filed along with the complaint dated 22.01.2018, at Sl.No.5 there is a reference about the track consignment dated 20.01.2018 issued by the Postal Authority showing that Petitioner/Accused had received the notice on 05.01.2018. Even at para No.iii of the complaint, the Respondent No.1/complaint averred that the Accused/Petitioner had 03.03.2026 Dr.YLR,J received the notice on 05.01.2018. Whereas, in Ex.P5 track consignment issued by the Head Post master, Grade III, Bhimavaram, it was mentioned that lawyer's notice dated 30.12.2017 was received on 22.01.2018 at Kalla which is the address of mother of Petitioner/Accused. In the complaint the address of the Petitioner/Accused was mentioned as Bhimavaram-I. Therefore, it can be easily understood that the lawyer's notice was not received by the Petitioner/Accused at his place of ordinarily residing at Bhimavaram I Town, it was sent to Kalla village where mother of Petitioner/Accused resided. The contention of the Respondent No.1/complainant that Petitioner/Accused received notice on 05.01.2018 is false and untenable.