Cheque dishonour liability and valid notice service were upheld after statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act were not rebutted.

Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as duly served because it was sent to the correct address and received by the accused's wife, with deemed service supported by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On the cheque claim, the cheque and signature were admitted, dishonour for insufficiency of funds was proved, and the Section 139 presumption operated in favour of the complainant. As the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, the transaction and liability were accepted and the conviction under Section 138 was held justified; the acquittal was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served on the accused. (ii) Whether the complainant proved issuance of the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt and dishonour of the cheque so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served on the accused.

Analysis: The notice was sent to the correct address and the postal records showed delivery at that address. The materials produced by the accused only showed a different permanent address, while the complainant relied on documents indicating the accused's local address and delivery of the notice at that address. The acknowledgment reflected receipt by the wife of the accused. Service through a family member at the correct address was treated as valid service, and the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 also supported deemed service.

Conclusion: The notice was duly served on the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the complainant proved issuance of the cheque towards a legally enforceable debt and dishonour of the cheque so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque and the signature of the accused were not disputed, and the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused did not rebut that presumption by credible evidence, and the challenge to the complainant's financial capacity and the transaction was not accepted. The dishonour memo and connected materials were sufficient to establish the offence.

Conclusion: The complainant proved the cheque transaction and dishonour, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was held guilty, and the complainant succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumption of liability arises and can be displaced only by credible rebuttal; likewise, notice sent to the correct address and received by a family member amounts to valid service, attracting the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

---