Presumption of service for statutory notice under cheque dishonour law upheld, with conviction sustained and imprisonment reduced.

Service of a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld where the notice was sent to the correct address and postal acknowledgment showed delivery there; the Court applied the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and held that receipt by a family member or staff does not defeat service without rebuttal evidence. The conviction was sustained. On sentence, the Court maintained compensation equal to the cheque amount but reduced the simple imprisonment from six months to three months, taking into account the petitioner's status as a woman.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice required for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly issued and served; (ii) Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment required interference while maintaining the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice required for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly issued and served.

Analysis: The notice was addressed to the accused at the correct address, and the postal acknowledgment showed delivery at that address. The Court applied the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and held that service cannot be defeated merely because the acknowledgment was received by a member or staff at the household. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption or show that there was no service of notice.

Conclusion: The objection regarding non-service of statutory notice was rejected and the conviction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment required interference while maintaining the conviction.

Analysis: The Court found that the cheque amount represented part payment of a larger liability and that compensation equal to the cheque amount did not call for interference. However, considering the petitioner's status as a woman, the custodial sentence imposed by the trial court was reduced.

Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, the term of simple imprisonment was reduced from six months to three months, and compensation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in substance, with only the custodial sentence modified while the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a demand notice under Section 138 is sent to the correct address and is shown to have been received at that address, service is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and the accused must rebut that presumption to avoid conviction.

---