Statutory notice service is essential in a cheque dishonour prosecution; without proof, conviction cannot stand.

In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the offence cannot be made out unless the complainant proves the cheque, its dishonour, timely issuance of statutory notice, and service of that notice on the accused. The record lacked postal receipt or postal cover showing that the notice was actually sent to the correct address with sufficient postage, so the foundational facts for invoking the presumptions under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act were absent. As a result, the essential ingredients of the offence were not established and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complaint could succeed in the absence of proof of service of the statutory notice on the accused.

Analysis: The offence under section 138 requires proof of issuance of cheque towards a legally enforceable liability, dishonour of the cheque, issuance of notice within the prescribed time, and proof of service of that notice. The record did not contain postal receipt or postal cover to establish that the notice was actually sent to the petitioner at a correct address with sufficient postage. In the absence of such foundational proof, the presumption of service under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The essential ingredients of the offence were not proved, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

---