Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 was barred by limitation on the basis of deemed service of the statutory notice.
Analysis: The notice was issued to the correct address and the postal cover carried endorsements showing continuous absence of the addressee and return to sender. The Court applied the principle of deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and treated the first postal intimation or, at the latest, the return of the notice as sufficient for commencement of the statutory period. The Court held that the waiting period under postal rules did not postpone the running of time for the purpose of Section 138. On that basis, the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period after accrual of cause of action.
Conclusion: The complaint was held to be barred by limitation and the acquittal was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the prosecution under Section 138 could not be maintained in time after deemed service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, service of notice may be deemed from the postal endorsement or first intimation sent to the correct address, and the limitation for filing the complaint runs from that deemed service rather than from any internal postal waiting period.