Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether non-filing of the postal track report or acknowledgment due card vitiated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the demand notice was sent to the correct address of the accused.
Analysis: The complaint disclosed issuance of cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and dispatch of demand notice to the correct address of the accused. In the absence of return of the envelope and in view of the legal presumptions arising under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, service of notice could be presumed unless the contrary was shown. The absence of a track report or acknowledgment due card, by itself, did not establish non-service so as to invalidate cognizance or the summoning order.
Conclusion: The plea that the proceeding was liable to be quashed for want of proof of actual service of notice was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The complaint and the summoning order were upheld, and the quashing petition failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sent by registered post to the correct address of the drawer, service is presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, unless the contrary is proved.