Proceeding cannot be quashed on the ground that notice not served within statutory period

The Supreme Court had held that the proceedings u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be quashed on grounds that the legal notice was not served within the statutory period.

The said judgment was held in the case of Mr.Kishor Sharma vs Sachin Dubey (Criminal Appeal 1325 of 2019) decided on 03.09.2019.

Challenge:

This is an appeal against the order of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, allowing the quashing petition filed by the accused under section 482 of CrPC on the solo grounds that legal notice is not been served on the accused within the statutory period.

Held:

The Bench had observed that the service of notice to the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is triable issue and and cannot be proceeded as an indisputable position-as is expounded by this Court in  Ajeet Seeds Limited vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah reported in (2014) 12 SCC 685.

In Ajeet Seeds Ltd., the Supreme Court held that the service of notice is a matter of evidence and proof and it would be premature at the stage of issuance of process to move to High Court for quashing of the proceedings. It is thus clear that Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of the General Clause Act gives rise to a presumption that Service of notice has been affected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It is not necessary to 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 affected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business.