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 the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the connected proceedings could be sustained in the absence of clear pleading and material showing effective service of the statutory notice and expiry of the prescribed 15 days.
Analysis: The statutory scheme requires service of demand notice and expiry of 15 days before the cause of action for prosecution under Section 138 arises. A presumption of service may arise where notice is sent by registered post to the correct address, but that presumption is rebuttable and the complaint must still disclose the relevant facts showing compliance with the statutory timeline. Here, although the notice was sent by registered post, the complaint did not state when the notice was received back, whether service had been effected, or how the 15 days period was computed. In the absence of such foundational averments, effective compliance with the mandatory pre-condition could not be presumed.
Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable for want of compliance with the mandatory notice requirement under Section 138, and the proceedings were liable to be quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can proceed only after the statutory notice requirement is shown to have been duly complied with and the prescribed 15 days have elapsed; where the complaint itself does not disclose such compliance, the proceedings cannot be sustained.