The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section...

The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on a third person, specifically a relative, without evidence that the accused had knowledge of such service, is insufficient to satisfy the mandatory notice requirement. The Court found no material indicating the accused received or was aware of the notice, which was instead served on the accused's mother. This failure to prove proper service of notice violated the procedural mandate essential for prosecution under Section 138. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the revision petitioner. The ruling reaffirms that the burden lies on the complainant to establish effective service on the accused, and mere service on a relative does not rebut the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act absent proof of the accused's knowledge.

---