Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the main legal point established in the judgment is that service of notice sent by registered post to the accused's address and received by his wife should be deemed as properly served. This conclusion is grounded in the provisions of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that when a notice is correctly addressed and sent via registered post, the presumption of proper service arises unless the accused can rebut this presumption by providing evidence to the contrary (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the judgment clarifies that the receipt of the registered notice by the wife at the same address as the accused is sufficient to establish that the notice was effectively brought to the knowledge of the accused. The trial court's earlier conclusion that the notice was not properly served because it was received by the wife and not directly by the accused was found to be legally incorrect. The appellate court held that, in the absence of evidence rebutting the presumption, it must be presumed that the notice was delivered and brought to the knowledge of the accused (!) .

The court also underlined the importance of considering relevant statutory provisions and legal principles concerning the service of notices, especially when sent by registered post, and the application of presumption under the Evidence Act and the General Clauses Act. It further directed that the matter be remitted back to the trial court for passing a fresh judgment consistent with this interpretation (!) .