MIS. AJEET SEEDS LTD. versus K. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH

Citation: [2014] 8 S.C.R. 880 · Decided: 16-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 880 
MIS. AJEET SEEDS LTD. 
v. 
K. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH 
(Criminal Appeal No.1523 of 2014) 
JULY 16, 2014. 
[RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881: 
c 
s. 138 - Complaint of dishonour of cheque - Service of 
notice u/s 138 and proof thereof -
Held: 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 -
D 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 delivered in the ordinary 
course of business - High Court clearly erred in quashing the . 
complaint on the ground that there was no recital in the 
E . complaint that the notice uls 138 of the NI Act was served upon 
the accused - It also e"ed in quashing the complaint on the 
ground that there was no proof either that the notice was 
served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed - That is a 
matter of evidence - Section 114 of Evidence Act enables 
the court to presume that in the common course of natural 
F 
events, the communication would have been delivered at the 
address of the addressee - Section 27 of General Clauses 
Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been 
effected when it is sent to the ,correct address by registered 
post - Evidence Act, 1872 - f· 114 - General Clauses Act, 
G 
1897 - s.27. 
. 
The complaint filed by the complainant against the 
respondent of offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable 
Instruments Act, 1881 was quashed by the High Court on 
H 
880 
AJEET SEEDS LTD. v. K. GOPALA KRISHNAIAH 
881 
A 
the petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent, on the 
grounds that there were no recitals in the complaint to 
demonstrate that the notice issued u/s 138 of the Act by 
the complainant was served upon the respondent~ 
accused on any specified date and that there was no 
proof that either the notice was served or it was returned 
8 
unserved/unclaimed and that there was no averment in 
the complaint about the same. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables c 
the Court to presume that ir. the common course of 
natural events, the communication would have been 
delivered at the address of the addressee. Section 27 of 
the General Clauses Act gives rise to a presumption that 0 
service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the 
correct addcess 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, E 
service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the 
time at which the letter would have been delivered in the 
ordinary course of business. [para 10] [888-E-G) 
C. C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. 2007 
F 
(7) SCR 326 = 2007 (6) SCC 555; D. Vinod Shivappa v. 
Nanda Belliappa 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 1008 = 2006 
(6) SCC 456; and K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan 
,Ba/an 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 271 = 1999 (7) SCC 510 - relied 
on 
Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2002) 9 
sec 415 - held inapplicable. 
G 
1.2. In the facts of the instant case, the High Court 
clearly erred in quashing the complaint on the ground H 
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 
A that there was no recital in the complaint that the notice 
u/s 138 of the NI Act was served upon the accused. The 
High Court also erred in quashing the complaint on the 
ground that there was no proof either that the notice was 
served or it was returned unserved/unclaimed. That is a 
B matter of evidence. In the circumstances, the impugned 
judgment is set aside and the complaint restored.[para 
11 and 13] [888-H; S89-A-B, F] 
c 
D 
Case Law Reference : 
(2902) 9 sec 415 
held inapplicable 
para 3 
2007 (7) SCR 326 
relied on 
para 4 
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 1008 relied on 
para 6 
199~ (3) Suppl. SCR 271 
relied on 
para 7 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No.1523 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2013 in 
E Criminal Writ Petition No. 1131/2012 of the High Court of 
Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 
Sudhanshu S. Choudhari and Vaisalya Vigya for the 
Appellant. 
F 
Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.