2007 (5) TMI 335 - SUPREME COURT

Whether in absence of any averments in the complaint to the effect that the accused had a role to play in the matter of non-receipt of legal notice or that the accused deliberately avoided service of notice, the same could have been entertained?

Whether the service of notice has been fraudulently refused by unscrupulous means?

Held that:- Appeal dismissed. The averment made in the complaint in this regard is that though the complainant issued lawyer’s notice intimating the dishonour of cheque and demanded payment on 4-8-2001, the same was returned on 10-8-2001 saying that the accused was ‘out of station’." True, there was no averment to the effect that the notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer of the cheque by ‘registered post acknowledgement due’. But the returned envelope was annexed to the complaint and it, thus, formed a part of the complaint which showed that the notice was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address and was returned with an endorsement that ‘the addressee was abroad.’ We are of the view that on facts in hand the requirements of section 138 of the Act had been sufficiently complied with and the decision of the High Court does not call for interference.