Presumption of service of statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act defeated the quashing of a cheque dishonour prosecution.

Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address gives rise to a presumption of service. The validity of service cannot be rejected merely on the basis of a postal endorsement, especially where the postal peon was not examined. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party disputing service, and the notice requirement must be construed to advance the object of the provision. The High Court was therefore not justified in quashing the complaint and summons; the impugned order was set aside and the prosecution under Section 138 was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summons and the complaint proceeding on the ground that statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act had not been validly served on the respondents.

Analysis: Notice was shown to have been sent by registered post and under certificate of posting to the correct address of the respondents. In such circumstances, service of notice is to be presumed, and the validity of service cannot be negated merely because of the postal endorsement, particularly when the postal peon was not examined. The statutory notice requirement under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to be construed in a manner that advances the object of the provision, and the burden to rebut the presumption of service lies on the party disputing service.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in holding the service invalid and in quashing the proceeding. The impugned order was set aside and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored.

---