Sainaba v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Background
The complainant had lent ₹3,00,000 to the accused, who repaid it with a cheque that later bounced. The Trial Court and first Appellate Court both convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the Kerala High Court overturned the conviction, holding that the mandatory statutory demand notice had not been validly served since it was received by the accused's mother rather than the accused personally.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court and restored the conviction and sentence. It held that once a demand notice is dispatched by registered post to the drawer's correct address, the law presumes valid service regardless of who at that address actually received it: the accused never disputed that the address was correct, and it was undisputed the notice reached that address. The Court went further and declared an earlier High Court precedent (M.D. Thomas) that had required personal delivery to the drawer to be "per incuriam" (decided without considering binding precedent) and therefore not valid law, since it would create the absurd result of protecting drawers whose notice was actually delivered while denying that protection only because a family member signed for it.
Lesson Learnt
For a cheque-bounce case, correctly addressing and dispatching the statutory demand notice is enough to trigger the legal presumption of valid service: the accused cannot escape liability merely because someone else at the same address received the notice on their behalf.