https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776062 The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on a third person, without evidence that the accused had knowledge of such service, is insufficient. The court relied on SC precedents establishing that notice must be served on the accused personally, and if the accused proves non-receipt and lack of knowledge of the notice, the prosecution fails. In the present case, the notice was served to a relative without proof that the accused was aware, leading to the conclusion that the notice was not validly served. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:54:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776062 The HC held that service of a statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the NI Act on a third person, without evidence that the accused had knowledge of such service, is insufficient. The court relied on SC precedents establishing that notice must be served on the accused personally, and if the accused proves non-receipt and lack of knowledge of the notice, the prosecution fails. In the present case, the notice was served to a relative without proof that the accused was aware, leading to the conclusion that the notice was not validly served. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776062