Presumption of service by registered post in cheque dishonour cases, and unclaimed notice does not defeat liability under the Act.

A statutory notice of dishonour sent by registered post to the correct address carries a presumption of service under the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act, even if the cover is returned unclaimed; service by certificate of posting is not required. In cheque dishonour matters, proof of issuance of cheques, timely presentation, and return unpaid for insufficiency of funds, together with the accused's admitted signatures and failure to rebut the presumption, supports liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The note also reflects that an acquittal based solely on an erroneous view of notice service cannot stand where the cheque transaction and dishonour are otherwise proved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice of dishonour was duly served when sent by registered post to the correct address and returned unclaimed, and whether service under certificate of posting was necessary. (ii) Whether the acquittal could be sustained when issuance of cheques, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and liability stood proved.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice of dishonour was duly served when sent by registered post to the correct address and returned unclaimed, and whether service under certificate of posting was necessary.

Analysis: Service of notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act may be effected by post, and a notice sent by registered post to the correct address attracts the statutory presumption of service. The return of the postal cover as unclaimed does not defeat service where the sender has dispatched the notice to the correct address. The Court also noted that there is no legal requirement to send such notice under certificate of posting, and the presumption under the General Clauses Act and the Evidence Act operates unless rebutted by cogent evidence from the addressee.

Conclusion: The notice was validly served in law, and absence of certificate of posting did not invalidate service.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal could be sustained when issuance of cheques, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and liability stood proved.

Analysis: The evidence established that the cheques were issued by the accused, presented within validity, and returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. The accused admitted the cheques and signatures but failed to produce convincing rebuttal evidence to displace the presumption arising from the proved cheque transaction and dishonour. Since the trial court's acquittal rested only on an erroneous view of notice service, its finding could not stand.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable, and conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted with fine and compensation directions.

Ratio Decidendi: A notice of dishonour sent by registered post to the correct address carries a presumption of service, which is not displaced merely because the cover is returned unclaimed or because no certificate of posting was used, and an accused who fails to rebut the presumption cannot sustain an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---