Regarding the original querry , now SC and many HC s have fine tuned the provisions of service of notice and reciept of notice.
section b says of giving of notice but section c says after recipt on notice if payment not made than accused liable. Both conditions must be fufilled. One of the observation of SC in such case.
“14, It is one thing to stay that sending of a notice
is one of the ingredients for maintaining the
complaint but is another thing to say that
dishonour of a cheque by itself constitutes an
offence. For the purpose of proving its case that
the accused had committed an offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
the ingredients thereof are required to be proved.
What would constitute an offence is stated in the
main provision. The proviso appended hereto,
however, imposes certain further conditions
which are required to be fulfilled before
cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the
ingredients for constitution of the offence laid
down in the provisos (a), (b) and (c) appended to
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are
intended to be applied in favour of the accused,
there cannot be any doubt that the receipt of a
notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of
action for filing a complaint. As it is only on
receipt of the notice the accused at his own peril
may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c)
of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be
read together. Issuance of notice would not by
itself give rise to a cause of action but
communication of the notice would.” (emphasis
Thus, even though issuance of notice is necessary ingredient, as
observed by the Supreme Court issuance of notice would not itself give
rise to the cause of action but communication of notice would.