2004 (11) TMI 515 - SC - Indian Laws

Burden is on the complainant to show that the accused has managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement made.

Summary

Issues:
- Legal validity of judgment regarding service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
- Interpretation of the requirement for initiation of legal proceedings based on the service of notice.
- Comparison of legal precedents related to the service of notice in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment in question involves the legal validity of a judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court concerning the service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging an offense under Section 138 of the Act due to the dishonor of a cheque issued by the accused. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating that the notice was not served on the accused, leading to an appeal. The High Court held that non-service of notice is not a ground for rejecting the complaint before trial, referencing a previous decision. The appellant argued that the complaint should be thrown out if notice was not served, relying on a Supreme Court case. The respondent's counsel contended that the effect of the incorrect endorsement on the notice should be considered during trial.

The critical issue at hand is whether the cause of action arose, considering that the notice sent to the accused was returned with an endorsement stating the "house was locked." The statutory requirements for notice under Section 138 were examined, emphasizing the need for a demand notice to be given in writing to the drawer within a specified timeframe. The interpretation of "giving notice" was analyzed, highlighting that it is distinct from the receipt of notice and emphasizing the obligation of the payee to send the notice correctly. The judgment referenced legal principles from Black's Law Dictionary and Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes to support the liberal interpretation of notice provisions for the benefit of the payee.

The judgment also discussed the presumption of service when a notice is refused to be accepted by the addressee, citing relevant legal precedents. It was noted that the burden is on the complainant to demonstrate any false endorsements regarding the non-availability of the notice recipient. The judgment concluded that the High Court's decision was justified, and no interference was warranted. The appeal was dismissed accordingly.