Legal notice may return as door locked.. intimation served

We work for the cheque bounce victims that is  all ober India with excellant sucess rate .

The complainant looses to accused win it is that simle due to over confidence of complaint.

1) Even the citation given by MADHU MITTAL , you have to read it fully with relation of the case before jimping on conclusions.

The citation mentions alva case so you have to read alva case which only says that complaint can be filed on presumed service but right of accused to rebutt  it  is safe.and existing. What it has added please read below=

It is needless to emphasise that the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of the issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque. It is well settled that at the time of taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, the Court is required to be prima facie satisfied that a case under the said Section is made out and the aforenoted mandatory statutory procedural requirements have been complied with. It is then for the drawer to rebut the presumption about the service of notice and show that he had no knowledge that the notice was brought to his address or that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the letter was never tendered or that the report of the postman was incorrect. In our opinion, this interpretation of the provision would effectuate the object and purpose for which proviso to Section 138 was enacted, namely, to avoid unnecessary hardship to an honest drawer of a cheque and to provide him an opportunity to make amends.

2) And this is the stage of congizence only thereafter the notice has to be exihibited, its pleading should be legal. On these issues there are hundreds of judgments  setting aside conviction  after ALVA citation of 2007 mentioned above.

Sir/Madam

1. It will be presumed that the legal notice was sent by Registered AD., and it is returned due to lock of the door, it is deeded as a served the notice but this notice should be, within 30 days from the dishonour of the Cheque.
2. File a Complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act within one month after the end of notice period of 30 days.

It is easy to criticise the legal system particularly by those who are not advocates.

It is the skill of the defense that he / she persuades the court to save his client. He has no authority over court.

And in the long discussions by the so called experts the real problem of original query is lost.

Please ensure proper service of notice by taking troubles at initial stage itself otherwise after spending years in the court you will come to know that your efforst have gone waste.

It is easy to criticise the legal system particularly by those who are not advocates.

Justice is the right of all whether advocates or non-advocates. When justice is not seen to be done one cannot keep quiet just because one is not an advocate.

It is the skill of the defense that he / she persuades the court to save his client. He has no authority over court.

That is the most unfortunate. What happens in a court of law is match between lawyers on both sides with no umpires. Judge is only a listener. In the end justice and truth are the casualities.

And in the long discussions by the so called experts the real problem of original query is lost.

If the experts wake up after one year of what use is for author of the original query?

Please ensure proper service of notice by taking troubles at initial stage itself otherwise after spending years in the court you will come to know that your efforst have gone waste

Even with all due care and proper service of notice the complainant sure to lose with mindless judgments.

I wish that our courts, should now recognise serving of notice by emails, Whatsup, Facebook accounts also, as being served.  We have to move towards tech savvy solutions

I presume that the judgment referred to by Learned Senior Advocate Laxmi Narayan was criminal appeal No 711 of 2009, M. D. Thomas vs. P. S. Jaleel.

The judgment is too brief and some questions remain unanswered. It is not only that a judgment should do justice but also should be complete with sufficient details  so that justice is also seen to be given. The judgment as well as its reproduction by the Senior Advocate says that the notice was served upon the wife of the appellant. There the three words with three different meanings. They are delivered to, received by and served upon. Delivered to would mean that  the postman had delivered the envelope containing the notice addressed to the appellant by name but he delivered the envelope to his wife. Received by could mean that the envelope containing the notice addressed to the appellant by name was taken by the postman to the correct address, but it was received by the wife.  If the notice was served upon the wife of the appellant, it would mean that the original Complainant addressed the notice to the wife of the appellant by name and not to the name of appellant. Was it so? A doubt arises as the judgment is too brief. If it was so certainly the requirements of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was not satisfied and the proviso of clause (b) of NI-138 is not satisfied either. But why should the original Complainant address his notice to the wife of the original accused and not to the accused himself? There is a question mark here which the judgment should have categorically answered.   

Even being non legal person you seems to have lot of time from your profession to read so much.

The court battles are like JUGSAW PUZZLES and no final word till the end stage for a vigilant litigant..

Go thorugh the Raj citation and SC alvi citation again and again. The Raj citation is at the stage of congnizance and SC citation is after conviction

The advcoate of Raj case will go back to the  lower court and frame few questions in cross and puzzle the complainant and get the result.

Any cheque case can be cracked by  well planned cross .At the t ime of cross there is no help of the advocate and the moment complainant  is consfused the case is gone. But taking cross is an art and it needs constant practice.

Have I a lot of time?  You will find answer to this question in my profile. What I watch are arguments of lawyers and judgments. Judges do not want to be pro-active. They passively and selectively listen to lawyers and give judgments. They are protected by contempt of court laws and at worst someone may  say the judge has 'erred'. No one will dare say that it was a foolish judgment. I am a non-lawyer. Lawyers and Judges notwithstanding justice should prevail

Cheque law is a harsh law where civil liability has been made crminal.

So advocates for the accused has to defend the accused and why should not if complainant makes mistakes and does not follow the full procedure.

In this thread  lot of discussion has been made and even all sorts of citations have been given but it is easy and simple task by legal means to confuse and contradict the complainant at lower court it self.by properly farmed questions in cross.

.

It is enough whilie filing the complant to say that the notice was sent by Regd AD at proper address. But at evidence stage the complainant  will have to give proper proof that the address was the correct one.Or as in above Raj HC case the notice was delevered to some relative than complainant has to prove that the reciever was relative of the accused.

IT IS LOOKS EASY WHILE READING BUT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE IN COURT OF LAW WITH EVIDENCE.WITH LIMITED TIME AVAILABLE.

Well planeed questions in cross fired immediately after the answer confuses the complainant and he / she contradicts him / her self without fail and the case is won by accused .

  What the judge will do and how law can help or even citations where the complainant fumbles at volly of rapid well preapared  cross questions..