Section 138 notice and limitation presumptions sustained; quashing challenge rejected on complaint materials and service record.

In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the note explains that a returned complaint was not shown to be refiled beyond the protected period, so the limitation objection failed. It also states that, at the cognizance stage, affidavit evidence with the cheque, return memo, notice and postal documents is sufficient for summoning, so the challenge to the summoning order was rejected. On service, notice sent by registered post to the correct address attracted the statutory presumption of service, and the accused did not rebut it; the objection was therefore rejected and the complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation after return of the earlier complaint and refiling before the competent court; (ii) whether the applicant was validly summoned without recording evidence; and (iii) whether service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not proved.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation after return of the earlier complaint and refiling before the competent court.

Analysis: The earlier complaint had been returned pursuant to the law declared in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod. The record did not establish the actual date on which the complaint and papers were returned to the complainant, and the order returning the complaint was signed later than the date relied upon by the applicant. The Court also noted that proviso to Section 142(1) permits cognizance after the prescribed period on sufficient cause. In the absence of material showing that refiling was beyond the protected period, the limitation objection was not accepted.

Conclusion: The limitation challenge failed and the complaint was held to be within time.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was validly summoned without recording evidence.

Analysis: The complaint was supported by affidavit and was accompanied by the cheque, return memo, notice, and postal documents. At the stage of taking cognizance in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, prima facie satisfaction on the basis of the complaint materials is sufficient.

Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not proved.

Analysis: The notice was shown to have been sent by registered post to the correct address. Under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, a presumption of service arises, and the burden lies on the drawer to rebut it. The applicant failed to produce any material to rebut the presumption or to show lack of knowledge of the notice.

Conclusion: Service of notice was presumed and the objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found to be devoid of merit and the criminal complaint proceedings were allowed to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, where notice is sent by registered post to the correct address and the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumption of service, and where the refiling of a returned complaint is not shown to be time-barred, the complaint cannot be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

---