Section 138 Notice III

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, (1999) 7 SCC 510 held, where sender has dispatched notice by registered post to correct address, service may be deemed to have been effected upon sendee, unless sendee establishes notice was not, in fact, served and such non-service was not attributable to him. C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 held, it is unnecessary for complainant to separately aver, addressee deliberately avoided service.

M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel, (2009) 14 SCC 398 without noticing Three-Judge Bench-C.C. Alavi Haji, set aside a conviction solely on the ground, the statutory notice had been served upon the wife of the drawer and not upon the drawer himself without examining whether the notice was correctly addressed or whether the wife resided with the husband-drawer. M.D. Thomas is per incuriam.

– Hon’ble Justice Manmohan, Sainaba v. State of Kerala, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 17180 of 2025].

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.