MODE OF SERVICE

Admittedly, notice under Section 138B of theNegotiable Instruments Act was sent to therespondents through registered post and under acertificate of posting on their correct address of therespondents. The High Court had quashedproceeding on the ground that although noticethrough registered post and also under certificate ofposting were sent by the appellant/ complainant tothe respondents but because of the endorsement ofthe postal peon, the service could not be said tohave been effected. In our view, the High Court wasnot justified in holding that service of notice couldnot be found to be valid. In K.Bhaskaran vs.Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. [1999 (7) SCC510], it has been held that the context of section138B of the Negotiable Instruments Act invites aliberal interpretation favouring the person who hasthe statutory obligation to give notice under the Actbecause he must be presumed to be the loser in thetransaction and provision itself has been made in 3 his interest and if a strict interpretation is asked forthat would give a handle to the trickster chequedrawer. It is also well settled that once notice hasbeen sent by registered post with acknowledgmentdue in a correct address, it must be presumed thatthe service has been made effective. We do not findfrom the endorsement of the postal peon that thepostal peon was at all examined. In V. Raja Kumarivs. P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr. [2004 (8) SCC 774],again this Court reiterated the same principle andheld that the statutory notice under Sections 138and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881sent to the correct address of the drawer butreturning with the endorsement must be presumedto be served to the drawer and the burden to showthat the accused drawee had managed to get anincorrect postal endorsement letter on thecomplainant and affixed thereof have to beconsidered during trial on the background facts ofthe case.