Karnataka High Court Clarifies Scope of Deemed Service in Cheque Bounce Cases
Shivaji Rathore 21-12-2025
The Karnataka High Court, in C. Niranjan Yadav v. D. Ravi Kumar (Criminal Revision Petition No. 814 of 2021), has comprehensively examined the legal principles governing service of statutory notice, deemed service, and the consequences of postal endorsements such as “not claimed”, “left”, or “not available in the house” in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The ruling reinforces settled law that mere non- receipt of notice does not automatically defeat a cheque dishonour complaint, provided the complainant has acted diligently.
Statutory Framework: Why Service of Notice Matters:- Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, issuance of a demand notice within the prescribed period is a mandatory pre-condition before filing a complaint. The notice serves a protective purpose granting the drawer an opportunity to make payment and avoid criminal prosecution. However, the statute does not mandate actual physical service in every case. What the law requires is proper dispatch of notice to the correct and last known address of the drawer.
What Is “Deemed Service”?
The concept of deemed service flows from:- Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Judicial presumptions relating to postal communication
When a notice is:, Properly addressed, Sent by registered post or equivalent mode, and Dispatched to the last known address of the accused, the law presumes that the notice has been served, unless the accused proves otherwise.
Endorsements Like “Not Claimed” or “Left”: Do They Invalidate the Case? The Karnataka High Court categorically held that postal endorsements such as:
“Not claimed”
“Left”
“House locked”
“Not known”
“Addressee not available” do not, by themselves, render the complaint non-maintainable
The Court clarified:
If the notice is sent to the correct address known to the complainant, the complainant’s responsibility ends there. Once dispatch is proved, the burden shifts to the accused to explain:- When he vacated the premises, Whether the change of address was officially intimated, and Why the notice could not be received. “Left the Address” – Who Bears the Risk?
A crucial finding of the Court was that an accused cannot take advantage of his own failure to update or communicate a change of address. In the present case, although the accused claimed to have shifted residence, he:- Failed to prove the exact date of shifting, Failed to show that the new address was disclosed to the complainant, and Failed to establish that the complainant deliberately sent notice to a wrong address. Accordingly, the Court applied the presumption of service under the General Clauses Act
Cognizance Not Barred Due to Alleged Improper Service:- The Court made an important distinction:
Improper service of notice does not bar the Magistrate from taking cognizance, especially once the accused appears before the Court. After appearance, the accused has full opportunity to:
Pay the cheque amount, Contest misuse, Raise all permissible defences during trial. Thus, objections regarding service lose much of their force after cognizance.
Purpose of Demand Notice: Substance Over Technicalities The judgment reiterates that the purpose of notice is not to create a technical escape route, but to:- Protect honest drawers, Enable voluntary payment, Prevent unnecessary criminal prosecution. If an accused genuinely intends to honour liability, nothing prevents payment even after receipt of summons from the court.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed:- Actual receipt of notice is not mandatory Dispatch to correct, last known address is sufficient Endorsements like “not claimed” or “left” amount to deemed service
Accused must prove bona fide non-service Courts will not allow technical objections to defeat substantive justice Practical Takeaway for Litigants & Lawyers
For complainants: Ensure notice is sent to the last known address Maintain postal records carefully
For accused persons: Update addresses formally
Do not rely solely on “non-service” as a defence
Prompt payment after summons can still mitigate consequences
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s ruling decisively curtails misuse of technical objections relating to service of notice in cheque bounce cases. By upholding the doctrine of deemed service, the Court has ensured that substance prevails over form, and that evasive conduct by drawers does not frustrate the legislative intent behind Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
CRL RP No 814 of 2021
