Ajeet Seeds Ltd. vs K. Gopala Krishnaiah

Q: Key Points

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is sufficient for the complainant to aver that a demand notice was sent by registered post to the correct address of the accused. This gives rise to a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. There is no requirement for the complaint to contain specific recitals about the date of service, proof of actual service, or that the notice was returned unserved or unclaimed. (!) [1000546040008][1000546040009][1000546040010] (!) (!) (!) The question of whether the notice was actually served, refused, evaded, or whether any postal endorsement was manipulated is a matter of evidence and proof to be determined at trial. It is premature to seek quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC at the stage of issuance of process based on alleged insufficiency regarding service of notice.[1000546040007][1000546040010] (!) The High Court erred in quashing the complaint solely on the ground of absence of explicit averments or proof regarding service of notice, as presumptions apply unless rebutted by the accused.[1000546040010] (!)

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2014 Supreme(SC) 529

RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, N.V.RAMANA
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Gopala Krishnaiah – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Advocate.

Judgement Key Points

Ratio Decidendi:

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it is sufficient for the complainant to aver that a demand notice was sent by registered post to the correct address of the accused. This gives rise to a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. There is no requirement for the complaint to contain specific recitals about the date of service, proof of actual service, or that the notice was returned unserved or unclaimed. (!) [1000546040008][1000546040009][1000546040010] (!) (!) (!)

The question of whether the notice was actually served, refused, evaded, or whether any postal endorsement was manipulated is a matter of evidence and proof to be determined at trial. It is premature to seek quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC at the stage of issuance of process based on alleged insufficiency regarding service of notice.[1000546040007][1000546040010] (!)

The High Court erred in quashing the complaint solely on the ground of absence of explicit averments or proof regarding service of notice, as presumptions apply unless rebutted by the accused.[1000546040010] (!)

Judgment :

Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is the complainant. He has challenged the judgment and order dated 21/03/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Criminal Writ Petition No.1131 of 2012 whereby the High Court has quashed the complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the NI Act’) being SCC No. 4118 of 2007 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad.

3. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to narrate all the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the complaint was filed alleging that the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for repayment of a legally recoverable debt bounced. On 17/6/2011 learned Magistrate issued process. The respondent-accused filed a criminal revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad mainly on the assertion that the demand notice was not served on him. The said criminal revision application was rejected. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-accused filed criminal writ petition in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 529

RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, N.V.RAMANAAjeet Seeds Ltd. – AppellantVersusK. Gopala Krishnaiah – Respondent

Cases Referred (7)

RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, N.V.RAMANA
Ajeet Seeds Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
K. Gopala Krishnaiah – Respondent