Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, in the absence of the date of service of the demand notice, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were made out so as to sustain the summoning order, and whether service of notice sent through private courier could be presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Analysis: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint must disclose the material dates necessary to complete the statutory sequence, including the date of service of notice on the drawer, because the fifteen-day period for payment and the accrual of cause of action depend upon that service. On the facts pleaded, neither the complaint nor the statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor the accompanying documents disclosed any date of service of the demand notice. In such circumstances, the offence could not be treated as complete. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was also held inapplicable because that provision contemplates service by post by registered post and does not extend to notice sent through a private courier.
Conclusion: The ingredients of the offence were not established, the presumption of service was unavailable, and the summoning order could not stand.