The presumption of service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies when sent via registered post, affirming the lower court's cognizance in dishonoured cheque cases.

JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) :

Heard Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Suraj Deo Munda, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding in connection with P.C.R. Case No.456 of 2014 including the order dated 24.06.2015, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the Court of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur.

3. The complaint case was filed alleging therein that the complainant is engaged in the business of Tyre Resoling and the accused used to purchase resoled tyres and also used to take old tyres after repairing on credit time to time. In course of business, the complainant was paid an amount of Rs.2.10 Lakhs vide cheque dated 03.07.2014, drawn in the State Bank of India in favour of the complainant with a view to clear his liabilities towards the complainant. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant with the State Bank of India, Pakur Bazar Branch on 04.07.2014, but the same was returned unpaid by the said Bank with remarks fund insufficient and the said intimation from the Bank has been received by the complainant on 04.07.2014. It was further alleged that the complainant requested the accused person to pay the said amount, but the accused person put no ear hence the complainant made a demand from the accused persons for payment of the mentioned in the said cheque and, thereafter, a notice through registered post dated 14.07.2014 was sent to the accused by his counsel. The said demand notice sent on 14.07.2014 has been served on the accused person as because the said demand notice has not been returned to the complainant within a period of one month or up to 14.08.2014 and the complainant also got no acknowledgment of the said registered demand notice from the post office. It was also alleged that the accused had his knowledge that there is or there was no sufficient fund in his account to honour the said cheque, but delivered the said cheque to the complainant.

4. Mr. Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint, it has not been disclosed when the notice has been served upon the petitioner and in absence of that, the learned Court has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner. To buttress his argument, he relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Shakti Travel & Tours v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 415.

5. The said argument is being resisted by Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. He submits that in paragraph 6 of the complaint petition, it has been disclosed that the notice was sent on 14.07.2014, however, postal receipt has not been received and the date of receiving of notice is not known to opposite party no.2. He further submits that opposite party no.2 has filed an application under Right to Information Act to know whether the notice has been received by the petitioner or not and pursuant to that, information has been supplied that the said notice has already been served to the petitioner, which has been brought by way of filing counter affidavit by opposite party no.2. He also submits that this issue has already been settled by the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another, reported in 2007 Cri. L.J. 3214 (SC). He submits that in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, it has been held that Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post.

6. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that notice was sent to the petitioner on 14.07.2014 by opposite party no.2, howeve