Statutory notice service and Section 139 presumption upheld, confirming liability on cheques issued in business transactions.

A statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as validly served where registered post delivery reached the petitioner's address, and courier receipt by the petitioner's son did not displace that finding. The plea that the cheques were merely security instruments also failed because the transaction reflected business-related financial accommodation, the accused did not lead defence evidence, and the presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted by credible material showing absence of debt or liability. The cheques were therefore treated as issued in discharge of liability, Section 138 applied, and the concurrent conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of the statutory notice was invalid because one mode of service was received by the petitioner's son; (ii) Whether the cheques were issued only as security and not in discharge of an existing debt or liability, so as to take the case outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether service of the statutory notice was invalid because one mode of service was received by the petitioner's son.

Analysis: The notice was dispatched through registered post as well as courier. The record showed delivery of the registered notice at the petitioner's address and a separate endorsement that the courier article was received by the petitioner's son. The finding of service of the registered notice was supported by the documentary record and the service through courier did not displace that finding.

Conclusion: The notice was validly served on the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheques were issued only as security and not in discharge of an existing debt or liability, so as to take the case outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The transaction between the parties showed advance financial accommodation connected with business dealings, and the accused admitted issuance of the relevant writings and did not adduce defence evidence. The statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the holder of the cheques, and the petitioner failed to rebut that presumption by showing that the cheques were not issued towards a liability. The plea that the cheques were merely security cheques was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The cheques were issued in discharge of liability and Section 138 was attracted.

Final Conclusion: No illegality or perversity was found in the concurrent findings of conviction, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a validly served statutory notice and the statutory presumption under Section 139 will sustain conviction unless the accused rebuts the presumption by credible material showing absence of debt or liability.

---