Statutory notice service under cheque dishonour law requires delivery proof or equivalent postal endorsement before cognizance.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the text states that service of the statutory notice cannot be presumed from bare dispatch by registered post alone at the pre-summoning stage. It explains that the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies only where the notice is properly addressed and posted, together with some reliable postal material such as delivery, refusal, unclaimed return, or a comparable endorsement. It further notes that Section 138 is penal and must be strictly construed, and that the service approach in Section 94 cannot be imported into Chapter XVII. The result is that some proof of delivery or equivalent postal evidence is required before cognizance.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the pre-summoning stage of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must produce proof of delivery or service of the statutory notice, or whether a presumption of service can be drawn merely from dispatch by registered post.

Analysis: The provision requiring notice to be given to the drawer was read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which permits a presumption only where the notice is properly addressed, posted, and there is some material showing delivery, refusal, unclaimed return, or similar postal endorsement. The Court held that Section 138 is a penal provision and must be strictly construed, and that the approach under Section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be imported into Chapter XVII. Section 144 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as reflecting the legislative standard for service by post, namely, acknowledgement due, refusal, or postal endorsement. The Court distinguished cases where the notice had been returned with some postal remark from a case where no delivery feedback was available at all, and held that mere dispatch without proof of delivery is insufficient to compel cognizance.

Conclusion: The complainant must, at the pre-summoning stage, show some proof of delivery or equivalent postal material before the court can presume service of the notice; mere posting of the notice is not enough.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cognizance cannot be taken on the basis of bare dispatch alone, and a presumption of service arises only when there is some reliable proof of delivery, refusal, unclaimed return, or comparable postal endorsement supporting deemed service.

---