In recent rulings, the courts have further clarified the interpretation and application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) and the process of quashing complaints under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Table 1: Key Case Laws
| Case Name | Court | Date of Ruling | Key Takeaways |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ganesh Babu Gupta v. State of U.P | Allahabad High Court | June 7, 2021 | Disclosure of the date of service of notice is not mandatory and is a matter of evidence, examined during the trial. The complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold even if it doesn’t specifically aver to the service of notice on the drawer on a given date. |
| C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed | Supreme Court | 2007 | Presumption under Section 144 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was discussed, forming a critical precedent. |
| Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah | Supreme Court | 2014 | Absence of averments in the complaint about service of notice upon the accused is a matter of evidence. |
| S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr Snehalatha Elangovan | Supreme Court | N/A | For quashing a complaint under Section 482 CrPC related to Section 138 of the NI Act, the director or the partner of a firm must produce sterling inconvertible material before the High Court. The complaint should not be quashed if the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint. |
Key Takeaways
- Disclosure of Service Date of Notice: As seen in the Ganesh Babu Gupta v. State of U.P case, the disclosure of the date of service of notice is not mandatory under Section 138 of the NI Act. It’s a matter of evidence that can be brought up and examined during the trial. The complaint cannot be thrown at the threshold even if it doesn’t specifically aver to the service of notice on the drawer on a given date.
- Presumption Under the Evidence Act: The C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed case highlights the presumption under Section 144 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. This implies that service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business unless proven otherwise by the addressee.
- Averments about Service of Notice: The absence of averments in the complaint about service of notice upon the accused is a matter of evidence, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah.
- Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 CrPC: The Supreme Court, in S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy v. Dr Snehalatha Elangovan, underlined that to quash a complaint under Section 482 CrPC, the director or the partner of a firm must produce sterling inconvertible material before the High Court. The complaint should not be quashed if the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint.
This note provides a better understanding of the critical nuances of Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 482 of the CrPC, including the serving of notices, evidence, and the process for quashing complaints. It highlights the need for the accused to present unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to have a complaint quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC, providing crucial guidance to legal practitioners navigating the complexities of these sections.
