The failure to produce essential documents for proof of service of statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act results in acquittal; remand for further evidence is justified in public interest.

JUDGMENT :

A.BADHARUDEEN, J.

Dated, this the 02^ND day of February, 2026 This appeal has been filed with the leave of the court challenging the judgment of acquittal in S.T. No. 682 of 2004, dated 07.06.2005 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Palakkad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant as well as the learned State Brief Adv. Archana Mithran O.K., appearing for the first respondent/accused in this case and also heard the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the second respondent.

3. M/s. Malabar Cements Limited, as complainant had filed a complaint under Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short, 'NI Act', hereinafter) before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Palakkad alleging that the accused/first respondent herein committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, on dishonour of Exts.P2 and P3 cheques alleged to be issued by the accused in favour of the M/s. Malabar Cements Ltd., for Rs. 32,000/- and Rs. 79,500/-, for want of funds, when the same were presented for collection.

4. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused mainly on the finding that no documents were produced to prove the date of serving of statutory notice.

5. On perusal of the judgment under challenge, it is discernible that, even though Ext.P6, copy of the lawyer notice was tendered in evidence to show that demand notice was issued on 10.01.2004, demanding the amount covered by the dishonoured cheques, the postal receipt or acknowledgment card or no other documents were produced by the complainant to prove issuance of notice and also to count the period of limitation for filing the complaint on the basis of acceptance of notice.

6. As per Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2026, today the learned counsel for the appellant produced certified copies, of the journal of registered parcels posted and the acknowledgment card alleged to be signed by the accused on 13/01, before this court to convince that in a connected case all these documents were produced. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant prayed for interference in the judgment of the acquittal and to provide an opportunity to the public sector company to pursue the case, on producing the documents showing issuance and service of notice before the trial court.

7. The learned State Brief appearing for the first respondent strongly opposed interference in the impugned judgment. According to the learned State Brief, production of documents before the appellate court would not suffice the requirement of production of relevant documents before the trial court itself.

8. In the instant case, as discernible from paragraph No. 7 of the judgment and as already pointed out, the non-production of postal receipt /acknowledgment card by the appellant/complainant before the Magistrate Court found to be fatal by the learned Magistrate, while acquitting the accused. Indubitably, as regards issuance of demand notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I.Act is concerned, the requirement of law is, issuance of notice in writing in the correct address of the accused and serving of notice is not the requirement of law. In the decision in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palappetty Muhammed and Another [2007 (6) SCC 555], the Apex Court dealt with presumption of service of notice and the refusal to accept the notice. Regarding presumption of service, the Apex Court held that when a notice is sent by registered post to the correct address of the drawer, it is deemed to be served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Regarding refusal to accept the notice, the Ap