Presumption of service under cheque dishonour law survives without postal proof when notice is sent to the correct address.

Service of a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is presumed when it is sent by registered post to the drawer's correct address within the statutory period. Absence of a postal track report, returned envelope, or acknowledgement due card does not by itself defeat service or vitiate cognizance and summons. The contrary presumption may be rebutted by the addressee at trial, but the complaint remained maintainable on the materials showing cheques issued towards admitted liability, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and dispatch of notice to the correct address.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed for want of postal track report or acknowledgement due card to prove service of demand notice.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed issuance of cheques towards an admitted legal liability, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and dispatch of a demand notice to the correct address of the accused within the statutory period. The absence of a returned envelope, track report, or acknowledgement due card did not by itself negate service. Presumption of service was available once the notice was sent by registered post to the correct address, and the contrary could be rebutted by the addressee at trial. The materials disclosed no illegality in the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons.

Conclusion: The challenge to the proceeding failed. The petition for quashing was rejected and the criminal revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sent by registered post to the correct address of the drawer, service can be presumed unless the contrary is proved, and lack of postal track report or acknowledgement due card does not by itself vitiate cognizance or the complaint.

---