Whether accused in cheque bounce case can be acquitted if reminder notice was sent by complainant?

This Court in catena of cases has held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed[2]. Though in process of interpretation right of an honest lender cannot be defeated as has happened in this case. From the perusal of relevant sections it is clear that generally there is no bar under the N.I. Act to send a reminder notice to the drawer of the cheque and usually such notice cannot be construed as an admission of non-service of the first notice by the appellant as has happened in this case.

16. Moreover the first notice sent by appellant on 12-04-1991 was effective and notice was deemed to have been served on the first respondent. Further, it is clear that the second notice has no relevance at all in this case at hand. Second notice could be construed as a reminder of respondent's obligation to discharge his liability. As the complaint, was filed within the stipulated time contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, therefore Section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act is attracted. In the view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

N. Parameswaran  Unni Vs. G. Kannan and Another

Print Page

Whether prosecution for dishonour is cheque is maintainable if reminder notice is sent?

It is clear from Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that once notice is sent by registered post by correctly addressing to the drawer of the cheque, the service of notice is deemed to have been effected. Then requirements under proviso (b) of Section 138 stands complied, if notice is sent in the prescribed manner. However, the drawer is at liberty to rebut this presumption.

15. This Court in catena of cases has held that when a notice is sent by registered post and is returned with postal endorsement "refused" or "not available in the house" or "house locked" or "shop closed" or "addressee not in station", due service has to be presumed2. Though in process of interpretation right of an honest lender cannot be defeated as has happened in this case. From the perusal of relevant Sections it is clear that generally there is no bar under the N.I. Act to send a reminder notice to the drawer of the cheque and usually such notice cannot be construed as an admission of non-service of the first notice by the Appellant as has happened in this case.

16. Moreover the first notice sent by Appellant on 12-04-1991 was effective and notice was deemed to have been served on the first Respondent. Further, it is clear that the second notice has no relevance at all in this case at hand. Second notice could be construed as a reminder of Respondent's obligation to discharge his liability. As the complaint, was filed within the stipulated time contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, therefore Section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act is attracted. In the view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 455 of 2006

Decided On: 01.03.2017

 N. Parameswaran Unni Vs. G. Kannan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N.V. Ramana and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation: 2017(6) MHLJ 441

Print Page

Whether it can be inferred that first notice was not served in case of dishonour of cheque if reminder notice is sent?

This Court in catena of cases has held that when a
notice is sent by registered post and is returned with
postal endorsement “refused” or “not available in
the house” or “house locked” or “shop closed” or
“addressee not in station”, due service has to be
presumed Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 647; State of M.P. v. Hiralal, (1996) 7 SCC 523
and V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu, (2004) 8 SCC 774.
 Though in process of interpretation right
of an honest lender cannot be defeated as has
happened in this case. From the perusal of relevant
sections it is clear that generally there is no bar
under the N.I. Act to send a reminder notice to the
drawer of the cheque and usually such notice cannot
be construed as an admission of non-service of the
first notice by the appellant as has happened in this
case.
16. Moreover the first notice sent by appellant on
12-04-1991 was effective and notice was deemed to
have been served on the first respondent. Further, it
is clear that the second notice has no relevance at


all in this case at hand. Second notice could be
construed as a reminder of respondent’s obligation
to discharge his liability. As the complaint, was filed
within the stipulated time contemplated under
Clause (b) of Section 142 of the N.I. Act, therefore
Section 138 r/w 142 of N.I. Act is attracted. In the
view of the matter, we set aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 455 OF 2006
N PARAESWARAN UNNI  V G KANNAN 
DATED: 1st March, 2017.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1681,2017(6) MHLJ 441

Print Page