Presumed service and amended territorial jurisdiction sustained a cheque dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court noted that a demand notice sent to the correct address and returned unclaimed attracted the presumption of service, so the complaint could not fail for non-service. It also held that the complaint filed in February 2015 was within time, as the relevant periods were computed from the deemed service of notice after dishonour on 22.12.2014. Applying the amended jurisdiction rule under Section 142(2), the Court further held that the Rampur trial court had territorial jurisdiction on the pleaded facts of presentation and dishonour. No ground was found to quash the complaint, and the petition was rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation; (ii) whether notice of demand was duly served on the drawer; (iii) whether the court at Rampur had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured on 22.12.2014 and the notice was sent to the correct address of the respondent. On the facts recorded, service was presumed from the registered notice and the period for payment and filing of the complaint had to be computed on that basis. The complaint was filed in February, 2015, which was within the permissible period.

Conclusion: The complaint was not time barred.

Issue (ii): Whether notice of demand was duly served on the drawer.

Analysis: The notice was issued to the same address disclosed by the petitioner, and the postal article returned unclaimed. In those circumstances, the presumption of service applied and the plea of non-service was not accepted.

Conclusion: Notice was duly served on the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the court at Rampur had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint.

Analysis: The judgment applied the amended jurisdictional rule under Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that, on the facts of presentation and dishonour pleaded, the trial court at Rampur was competent to proceed. The reliance placed on the earlier jurisdiction objection was rejected in light of the amended statutory position.

Conclusion: The court at Rampur had territorial jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: No ground was found to invoke the power to quash the complaint, and the petition was rejected while the trial court was left to decide the merits independently.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, service may be presumed when notice is sent to the correct address and returned unclaimed, and jurisdiction must be determined in accordance with the amended statutory rule governing the place of inquiry and trial.

---