Cheque Bounce Notice Received by Family Member at Correct Address Is Valid; M.D. Thomas Per Incuriam: Supreme Court

Sainaba alleged that respondent No. 2 borrowed Rs 3,00,000 and issued a cheque that was dishonoured (para 4). Her demand notice of 31 August 2016, sent by registered post to his correct address, was received by his mother, and he neither paid nor replied (para 5). The trial court convicted him in 2019 with six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,00,000, and the appellate court upheld it in 2023 (paras 7-8). On 29 July 2025 the Kerala High Court allowed his revision, holding that the notice had not been served on him (paras 2, 9). He did not appear before the Supreme Court despite service (para 3).

Under proviso (b) to Section 138 and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, a notice sent by registered post to the correct address is deemed served unless the contrary is proved (paras 18-19). Relying on K. Bhaskaran, D. Vinod Shivappa and the three-Judge Bench in C.C. Alavi Haji, the Court held that the requirement of giving notice is met once it is sent to the correct address; the drawer must then show the address was wrong, the postal report was incorrect, or that he did not know of the notice (paras 20-24). M.D. Thomas, which set aside a conviction because the notice was received by the drawer's wife, ignored Alavi Haji and wrongly treated a spouse as an unrelated third party; applying Synthetics and Chemicals, it "is per incuriam and cannot be treated as binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution" (paras 25-30). Here the address was the one on his vakalatnama and petitions, he never disputed it, and he did not claim to live apart from or be on hostile terms with his mother (para 31). The High Court had "wrongly shifted the burden from the accused-drawer to the complainant" (para 34).