Since in Bhaskaran's case (supra), the notice issued in terms of Clause (b) had been returned unclaimed and not as refused, the Court posed the question: 'Will there be any significant difference between the two so far as the presumption of service is concerned?' It was observed that though
Section 138 of the Act does not require that the notice should be given only by 'post', yet in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, the principle incorporated in
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (for short 'G.C. Act') could profitably be imported in such a case.
It was held that in this situation service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sender unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service.
Equivalent Citation: 2013(3)ABR860, 2014ALLMR(Cri)1836, 2013(2)BomCR(Cri)502, 2013CriLJ2415, 2013(2)Crimes576(Bom.), 2013(6)MhLj147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Criminal Revision Application No. 435 of 2011
Decided On: 03.04.2013
Rekha Mahindra Shah Vs. Gautam Umed Parmar and The State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
#notice
#summon
#deemedservice
#section138
Comments
Post a Comment