TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed, having failed to pay the amount within a reasonable time, had issued three cheques bearing Nos.981735, 981736 and 981737 dated 01.03.2006, 01.04.2006 and 01.05.2006 respectively, for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, drawn on Laxmi Villas Bank, Davanagere Branch. The said cheques were presented to bank for encashment but they were dishonoured and returned with an endorsement "funds insufficient". The appellant-complainant got issued legal notice dated 22.05.2006, but it was returned with a shara "not claimed". Since the respondent-accused failed to repay the loan amount, the appellant-complainant filed a private compliant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I.Act. On recording the sworn statement, the case was registered at C.C.No.1575/2009. The charges were read over, but the accused denied the same and claimed to be tried. The complainant got himself examined as P.W.1 and documents were marked as per Exs.P-1 to P-14. The respondent-accused has not led any evidence, but a letter issued by TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd., is got marked as Ex.D-1 during the course of cross-examination, D.W.1. 3. The trial Court, on analysis of the evidence a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting. The said finding of the trial Court is erroneous. The documentary evidence placed on record clearly goes to show that legal notice was sent through registered post acknowledgment due. Ex.P-12 the envelope, which is returned as unclaimed, clearly goes to show that there was proper service of notice as required under Section 17 of General Clauses Act. However, the trial Court has failed to consider this aspect. Thus, it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. In support of the said contention, learned counsel has relied on the following decisions: i. 2014 STPL 9253 SC [2014 (AIR (SCW) 4321] in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K.Gopala Krishnaiah. ii. 2013 STPL 2766 Karnataka in the case of M.S.Srikara Rao vs. H.C.Prakash. iii. 2018 STPL 12982 Karnataka in the case of Prabhakar Shripati Hegde vs. B.V.Naik 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-accused supported the decision of the trial Court and further submitted that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. There is ample evidence on record to show that there was a transaction of insurance policy and respondent-accused has issued a cheque towards p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsons for the time being executing the functions of an office, to mention the official title of the officer at present executing the functions, or that of the officer by whom the functions are commonly executed. (2) This section applies also to all [Central Acts] made after the third day of January, 1868, and to all Regulations made on or after the fourteenth day of January, 1887. 11. In the decision reported in 2014 STPL 9253 SC [2014 (AIR (SCW) 4321] in the case of Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs. K.Gopala Krishnaiah, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "14. Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. In view of the said presumption, when stating that a notice has been sent by registered post to the address of the drawer, it is unnecessary to further aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce of D.W.1 on the reason that the respondent-accused has not placed cogent evidence to show that the cheques issued by him in favour of the complainant is towards payment of premium. It is rightly held that when the accused admits Exs.P-1 to P-3 belongs to him and the signatures on the said cheques are also admitted by him, it is for the respondent-accused to prove that the said cheques were issued towards payment of premium installments of insurance policy. There is no plausible explanation by the respondent-accused as to why Exs.P-1 to P-3 were issued in the name of appellant-complainant. 13. In the present appeal, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint only on the reason that the legal notice issued through RPAD to respondent-accused was returned un-served as 'not claimed'. The postal cover sent through RPAD returned as not claimed does not mean due service of notice. Even during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, nothing has been elicited regarding service of notice. When the appellant-complainant has not sent the legal notice to the respondent-accused under certificate of posting, there is no presumption of due service of notice to the respondent-accused. It is ....