The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the validity of notices issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a recent judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No. 814 of 2021. The case, heard by Justice V Srishananda, addresses the crucial issue of service of notice in cheque dishonor cases.
In this case, C. Niranjan Yadav (the accused) challenged his conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that the notice was not properly served. The complainant, D. Ravi Kumar, had sent a legal notice to Yadav’s last known address after a cheque for Rs. 65,000 was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
The court upheld the validity of notices sent to the last known address of the accused in cheque bounce cases. Justice Srishananda observed, “What is to be looked into is, whether the address of the accused which is known to the complainant has been properly mentioned on the registered cover”. The court further clarified that if the notice is sent to the registered address, the responsibility of the complainant ends, and it is for the accused to explain why they could not receive the cover.
This ruling places the onus on the accused to justify non-receipt of the notice. The court stated, “If it is sent to such a registered address, responsibility of the complainant would end and it is for the accused to say as to why he could not receive the cover”.
The judgment also addressed the purpose of issuing a demand notice under Section 138. Justice Srishananda noted, “The purpose of issue of prior notice before the complaint would be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate is loud and clear in the language, which has been employed in the aforesaid provisions in as much as the requirements of issue of prior notice is to protect a bonafide drawer of the cheque”.
Importantly, the court held that after cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, the question of improper service of notice loses its significance. The court stated, “There is no bar for the Magistrate to act on the endorsement by the Postal Authority like ‘Not claimed’ while taking cognizance. After taking cognizance, the question of improper service of notice practically loses its significance”.
This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly regarding the service of notice and its implications for the accused. It reinforces the principle that notices sent to the last known address of the accused are valid, and the burden of explaining non-receipt falls on the accused.
The case details are as follows:
– Case Number: Criminal Revision Petition No. 814 of 2021
– Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V Srishananda
– Petitioner’s Lawyer: Sri Sateesh Chandra K.V.
– Respondent’s Lawyer: Sri G. Lakshmeesh Rao
– Parties: C. Niranjan Yadav (Petitioner/Accused) vs D. Ravi Kumar (Respondent/Complainant)
