Supreme Court: cheque-bounce notice served on drawer's relative at correct address binds him

A cheque for Rs. 3,00,000, issued to repay a loan, was dishonoured, and the payee sent a statutory demand notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by registered post to the drawer's correct address; the notice was received by his mother. The Trial Court convicted the drawer and the Sessions Court dismissed his appeal, both finding service of notice at the correct address sufficient.

In revision, the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction, holding that without proof the drawer actually knew of the notice, service could not be presumed, and shifting the burden to the complainant to prove the drawer's awareness. The Supreme Court restored the conviction. It held that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 raise a presumption that a notice sent by registered post to the correct address is deemed served, as settled in K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) and D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa (2006); once the drawer fails to show the address was wrong or that he had no knowledge of the notice, the presumption stands unrebutted.

The drawer here never disputed his address and had received court summons at the same address. The Court held the High Court had misread its own precedent, C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed (2007), and wrongly reversed the burden of proof, and restored the Trial Court's sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and a Rs. 3,00,000 fine.