1. The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The only contention addressed by the petitioner’s counsel in this petition is that there is no valid service of notice under Section 138(b) of the Act. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant got issued statutory notice to the accused under the Act on 27.03.2006 for payment of dishonoured cheque amount and that the accused having received copy of notice which was sent under certificate of posting and known the contents of registered cover, got returned the registered cover with false endorsement. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that even the notice of the criminal case sent through Court to that address of the accused was returned with endorsement that there is no such person in that address and door number. From return endorsement on the notice cover, one cannot presume that the address was wrongly stated. There is an averment in the complaint that notice sent under certificate of posting was received by the accused.

2. Placing reliance on JAI DURGA ENTERPRISES VS. STATE OF U.P. (I (2007) BC 184)of the Allahabad High Court, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that service of notice by certificate of posting and similar allegations made in the complaint therein, were not accepted by the Allahabad High Court and consequently quashed the complaint on the ground that there was no valid service of statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Act.

3. The Allahabad High Court referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 for finding whether service of notice by certificate of posting was proper service or not. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reads as follows:

“Meaning of service by post.- Where any (Central Act) or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression ‘service’ or either of the expressions ‘give’ or ‘send’ or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.”

The said provision deals with meaning of service by post. Whereas, Section 138(b) which prescribes a precondition on the complainant by way of service of notice, reads as follows:

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account:- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(b). the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid;”

Section 138(b) of the Act contemplates giving of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. It does not further prescribe any mode of service of the said notice in writing. It is conspicuously absent in the said provision t