Section 138 notice service upheld where postal tracking proved delivery and presumption of service was not rebutted

Service of the Section 138 demand notice was upheld where the notice bore the correct name and address of the company and the postal track report showed delivery. A mistake in the postal receipt was treated as non-determinative because the receipt evidenced dispatch only, not actual service. The presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applied, and the accused failed to rebut it. Once service on the company was established, separate service on the director was unnecessary for maintaining the complaint, and the acquittal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand notice required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was duly served so as to sustain the prosecution for dishonour of cheque.

Analysis: The copy of the notice showed the correct name and address of the company, and the postal track report established delivery. The mistake in the postal receipt was treated as non-determinative because the receipt only evidenced dispatch, not actual service. The presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applied, and the accused did not rebut it. Once service on the company was established, separate service on the director was unnecessary for the purpose of maintaining the complaint.

Conclusion: The demand notice was held to have been duly served on the company, and the acquittal was set aside.

---