2020 (1) TMI 1582

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No. 3605 of 2018 (Hari Singh v. Nawab Singh), P.S. Kuthond, District Jalaun, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that it is admitted case of the opposite party no. 2 that though, the opposite party no. 2 has been sent a notice dated 16.07.2018, the service of notice has not been effected and therefore, the complaint which has been filed on 06.09.2018 is not maintainable as the time period of 15 days cannot be calculated as to when the notice has been given to the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable. He has also submitted that there is no whisper about service of notice sent on 16.07.2018. Under the circumstances, pre-condition as contain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....during the course of argument, the counsel for the respondent-complainant could not point out the date of service of such notice. Thus, in the total absence of date of service of notice demanding payment of the cheque amount, no offence is made out against the applicants. Moreover, it cannot be said that any such notice was ever served on the applicants and consequently fifteen days period for making the payment of the cheque money cannot be counted and unless that is done no offence is made out against the applicants. The contention of respondent-complainant that the service is to be presumed as also cannot be accepted because Section 27 of General Clauses Act does not take into its purview service by private courier. For a proper understa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gislature has kept service by private courier outside the purview of the Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, therefore the Courts cannot implant such presumption of service into that section and rightly so because private courier services are privately run businesses without any authenticity of service. (Emphasis mine) consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the service should be presumed in the present case cannot be accepted as it does not hold good on the provision of the statute itself and has to be rejected. Resultantly, the submission of the counsel for the applicant that in the present case no offence is made out holds good and deserves to be accepted and I hold so. Countering the argument, lear....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs. Anr.15 and Shimla Development Authority and Ors. v. Santosh Sharma (Smt.) and Anr., (1997) 2 SCC 637. 20. It has also been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court that when notice is sent at the correct address by registered post and neither acknowledgment nor undelivered registered cover is received back then there is presumption of service although rebuttable. The burden to rebut presumption lies on the party challenging the factum of service. Reference in this regard may be had to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank v. Datla Venkata Chinna Krishnam Raju17; Ram Chandra Verma v. Jagat Singh Singhi and others18; ATTABIRA Regulated Market Committee v. Ganesh Rice Mills19; Union of India v. Ujagar Lal....