Registered-post notice and part-payment cheque liability sustained conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A notice sent by registered post to the accused's correct business address attracted the statutory presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, and a bare denial of receipt was insufficient to rebut it; the notice was therefore treated as duly served. On the cheque-liability issue, the evidence showed an existing outstanding liability larger than the cheque amount, so a cheque for Rs. 90,000/- could validly operate as part discharge of that debt. The court held that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out, set aside the acquittal, and held the accused guilty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was deemed served on the accused when sent by registered post to the correct business address, notwithstanding the dispute about the signature on the acknowledgment card; (ii) Whether the cheque for Rs. 90,000/- was unsupported by any existing debt or liability when the complainant's evidence showed a larger outstanding liability on the date of issuance.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was deemed served on the accused when sent by registered post to the correct business address, notwithstanding the dispute about the signature on the acknowledgment card.

Analysis: Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 raises a presumption of service when a document is properly addressed, prepaid, and posted by registered post. That presumption is rebuttable, but denial of receipt in a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without more, is insufficient. The notice was sent to the accused's admitted business address, and the complainant's admission that the acknowledgment signature did not tally with the accused's signature did not by itself displace the statutory presumption. The surrounding circumstances also supported the inference that the notice reached the addressee at that address.

Conclusion: The notice must be treated as duly served, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption of service.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque for Rs. 90,000/- was unsupported by any existing debt or liability when the complainant's evidence showed a larger outstanding liability on the date of issuance.

Analysis: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies where a cheque is issued, in whole or in part, towards a debt or other liability. The evidence on record showed that the accused owed the complainant a sum much larger than the cheque amount on the relevant date. The finding that only Rs. 86,089/- was due ignored material evidence indicating a total liability of Rs. 1,92,350/-. A cheque issued for Rs. 90,000/- could therefore validly represent part discharge of the existing liability.

Conclusion: The cheque was issued towards an existing liability, and the offence under Section 138 was made out.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the complainant's appeal succeeded, and the accused was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice sent by registered post to the correct address attracts the statutory presumption of service, which can be rebutted only by cogent evidence, and a cheque issued even for part of an admitted or proved liability satisfies Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---