by A Critical Analysis of the Allahabad High Court’s Decision
In recent legal developments, the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Prashant Chaudhary v. Ritesh Kumar Singh (Matters Under Article 227 No. 4547 of 2023, dated 13 October 2023), has addressed a significant aspect of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The issue at hand pertains to whether it is mandatory to specify the date of receipt of notice in the complaint itself.
Background and Legal Context
Section 138 of the NI Act pertains to dishonor of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account maintained by a person with a banker. One of the prerequisites for filing a complaint under this section is the issuance of a statutory notice demanding payment to the drawer of the cheque, and the receipt of such notice by the drawer.
The Allahabad High Court’s decision in Prashant Chaudhary v. Ritesh Kumar Singh draws upon a crucial reference from a similar case, Dasharatbhai Trikambhai Patel vs Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel (dated 12 January 2022). In this reference, the court emphasized that while the date of receipt of the notice is indeed significant, it need not be explicitly mentioned in the complaint if the related documents (such as the notice itself) are attached with the complaint.
Judicial Interpretation
The court highlighted the principles established by the Supreme Court in Ajeet Seeds Ltd. v. Gopal Krishnaiah [(2014) 12 SCC 685], which stress the practicality of attaching documentary evidence like the notice to the complaint. This approach ensures that the essential details, including the date of receipt of notice, are available for judicial scrutiny without necessarily burdening the complaint with excessive details.
Statutory and Evidentiary Presumptions
To further solidify its reasoning, the Allahabad High Court referred to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, which deals with the presumption of documents served by post. This section aids in presuming that a notice sent by post is deemed to have been received by the addressee in the ordinary course of postal services unless proven otherwise.
Moreover, Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was invoked to underscore the presumption of due delivery or proper service of notice when such notice is sent in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the date of receipt of notice remains a critical element in complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Allahabad High Court’s decision clarifies that mentioning this date in the complaint itself is not mandatory if the relevant documents substantiating the notice are annexed to the complaint. This pragmatic approach ensures compliance with legal requirements while avoiding unnecessary procedural complexities.
This decision reinforces the importance of documentary evidence in legal proceedings and aligns with judicial interpretations aimed at promoting efficiency and clarity in the adjudication of disputes under the NI Act. As such, practitioners and litigants should take note of this nuanced approach to pleading requirements in similar cases to ensure their complaints are legally sound and procedurally effective.
Prashant Chaudhary v. Ritesh Kumar Singh
