Service of notice under cheque dishonour law and the presumption from official acts remain unsettled, warranting larger Bench review.

Service of notice under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is examined as a mandatory requirement, but the text notes that non-service alone may not defeat prosecution where service is evaded or falsely avoided. It also highlights the presumption from official acts under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which is rebuttable and may require proper averments in the complaint to be displaced at the threshold. Because the interaction between these principles was not fully resolved, the matter was referred for consideration by a larger Bench, and no final determination on merits was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of notice under the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is mandatory and whether, in the absence of averments that the accused was responsible for the postal endorsement of non-service, cognizance of the complaint could be sustained.

Analysis: The order noted the earlier view that non-service of notice by itself should not defeat prosecution where service is evaded or falsely avoided, and that such questions may require evidence. It further observed that the earlier decision had not considered the presumption arising from official acts under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, which is rebuttable but may require proper averments in the complaint to be displaced at the threshold. In view of this unresolved aspect, the order held that the matter warranted consideration by a larger Bench.

Conclusion: The question was not finally decided on merits and was referred for consideration by a larger Bench.

---