Jharkhand High Court quashed a Section 138 NI Act complaint due to lack of proof of demand notice service.
The Jharkhand High Court quashed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to the complainant's failure to prove proper service of the statutory demand notice. The Court held that the burden of proving issuance and delivery of notice lies squarely on the complainant.
Applying settled law from M/s. S.M. Banerjee v. S.P. Saha and later affirmed in NI Act amendments, the Court reiterated that non-compliance with the notice requirement renders the proceeding funus. Mere filing of an affidavit of service is insufficient without independent corroboration or postal receipts.
Legal practitioners must now ensure strict compliance with notice procedures, including use of registered post with acknowledgment due and, where possible, electronic proof. This decision tightens scrutiny on procedural prerequisites in cheque bounce cases.
Citations
- M/s. S.M. Banerjee v. S.P. Saha, (2000) 2 SCC 406