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

[Criminal Appeal No 455 of 2006]
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.V. Ramana and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
Dated:1st March, 2017.

Citation: 2017(1) DCR 417.
Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page