Presumption of service under cheque dishonour notice rules applies when registered post is correctly dispatched to the drawer's address.

For a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, proper dispatch of the statutory notice by registered post to the correct address can trigger the presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, supported by section 114 of the Evidence Act. A complainant need not, at the pleading stage, specifically aver that the drawer deliberately evaded service or had actual knowledge of the notice if basic facts of due dispatch are stated. The presumption remains rebuttable, and the drawer may challenge service by showing a wrong address, non-tender of the notice, or an incorrect postal endorsement.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it is necessary to plead in addition to dispatch of notice by registered post that the drawer deliberately avoided service or had actual knowledge of the notice, and whether service can be presumed from proper dispatch to the correct address when the notice is returned unserved.

Analysis: The requirement of notice under the proviso to section 138 is mandatory, but the statute speaks of giving notice and not actual receipt in every case. When a notice is properly addressed and sent by registered post, the statutory presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 operates, and a further averment that the drawer evaded service or had actual knowledge is not indispensable at the stage of complaint. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 also supports a rebuttable presumption based on the ordinary course of business, though the presumption under section 27 is stronger. The complaint need only disclose basic facts showing due dispatch of notice, after which the drawer may rebut service by proof that the address was wrong, the notice was never tendered, or the postal endorsement was incorrect. Requiring an averment of deliberate evasion in every case would defeat the object of section 138 and allow dishonest drawers to evade prosecution by avoiding service.

Conclusion: The complaint need not contain a specific averment that the drawer deliberately avoided service or had knowledge of the notice, if the notice was properly sent by registered post to the correct address and the statutory presumption of service is available. Service can be presumed, subject to rebuttal by the drawer.

---