(1.) IN both these matters, there is a common question as to whether return of notices addressed to the accused (petitioners/accused) with endorsement "addressee was not available " would amount to sufficient compliance of the service of notices for the purpose of filing complaint and prosecuting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act ') respectively.
(2.) IT is contended on behalf of the accused that by virtue of Section 138 N.I. Act, the notices said to be sent to the accused should have been served upon them for the purpose of taking necessary action under that provision subject to complying with other relevant formalities enshrined thereunder. On the other hand, though by virtue of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a notice was sent to a person giving proper address of him that would give a presumption of proper service of the notice upon him when the notice was returned with endorsement "addressee was not available ", that presumption stood rebutted. He has placed reliance upon the decisions in A.SUDERSHAN v. MANNAN (SHABIR) (1997(1) ALD (Crl.) 795 (AP) and RAHUL BUILDERS v. ARIHANT FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS (2008) 2 SCC 321) in support of his contention.
(3.) THEREFORE , it is to be seen as to whether proper service of the notices took place or whether there are grounds to quash the proceedings.