ORDER : 1. Revision Petitioner is the accused in S.T. No. 4012/2013 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ottappalam and he is the appellant in Crl. Appeal No. 404/2014 of Sessions Court, Palakkad. In this revision, he assails the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘N.I. Act’) 2. The parties shall be referred to as complainant and accused as shown in S.T. No. 4012/2013. 3. The case of the complainant ‘Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd.’ is that on 06.04.2006, the accused stood as a guarantor for a vehicle loan of Rs. 3,78,000/- availed by his brother Aneesh from its branch at Palakkad and issued postdated cheques for the repayment of the loan in monthly instalments. But the said cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured one by one. When the complainant intimated the said fact to the accused, he issued Ext.P2 cheque dated 07.02.2009, for an amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Ottappalam branch, towards repayment of the balance loan amount with interest. Though the complainant presented Ext.P2 cheque for encashment, it was also bounced stating the reason ‘no such account’. Though the complainant caused to issue notice to the accused intimating the factum of dishonour of cheque and demanding the amount covered by the cheque, accused purposely evaded the notice. Accused failed to pay the amount covered by Ext.P2 cheque and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 138 N.I Act. 4. Accused denied the liability to pay any amount to the complainant and also denied the issuance of Ext.P2 cheque to the complainant. 5. Evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and documents marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P17. No defence evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. 6. After trial, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months and to pay compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. In appeal filed by the accused as Crl. 3,90,000/- to the complainant under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. in default of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. In appeal filed by the accused as Crl. Appeal No. 404/2014, his conviction was confirmed but the order of sentence was modified and he was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court, and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,90,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. It was further ordered that, on realization of the fine amount, the same shall be given to the complainant as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 7. The point for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence needs any interference by this Court. 8. Though the accused would contend that, he has not issued Ext.P2 cheque to the complainant institution, the evidence tendered by PW2 who was the Manager of Canara Bank, Ottappalam would show that accused was maintaining an account in the said bank as Account No. SB34975. Ext.P16 is the copy of cheque book issue register. The evidence on record would show that Ext.P2 is a cheque drawn in the said account of the accused. Therefore, the case of the accused that, he did not issue Ext.P2 cheque and he has no connection with Ext.P2 cheque is untenable. 9. The next aspect for consideration is whether the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque to the complainant in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. 10. PW1 who was the Senior Business Executive of the complainant company testified that on 06.04.2006, the accused stood as a guarantor for a vehicle loan of Rs. 3,78,000/- availed by Mr. Aneesh who is the brother of the accused agreeing to repay the loan amount in monthly instalments and executed Ext.P13 hypothecation agreement. A perusal of Ext.P13 would show that accused stood as a guarantor for the vehicle loan of Rs. 3,78,000/- availed by his brother Aneesh, agreeing to repay the loan amount in monthly instalments as spoken to by PW1. 11. A perusal of Ext.P13 would show that accused stood as a guarantor for the vehicle loan of Rs. 3,78,000/- availed by his brother Aneesh, agreeing to repay the loan amount in monthly instalments as spoken to by PW1. 11. The specific case of the complainant is that at the time when the loan was availed and hypothecation agreement was executed, accused who was the guarantor of the said loan had issued postdated cheques for repayment of the monthly instalments of the loan amount and all such cheques issued by the accused were dishonoured and when the complainant company intimated the said fact to the accused, he issued Ext.P2 cheque for Rs. 3,90,000/- towards repayment of the balance loan amount with interest. PW1 has categorically testified that accused executed Ext.P2 cheque before him and handed it over to him. It is to be borne in mind that accused has absolutely no explanation as to how his signed cheque came to the possession of the complainant. Per contra, the evidence adduced by the complainant would show that accused who stood as a guarantor for the vehicle loan availed by his brother from the complainant company issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of the liability towards that account. 12. Ext.P3 memo issued from the bank would show that Ext.P2 cheque was dishonoured stating the reason ‘no such account’. PW2, the Bank Manager has testified that, at the time when Ext.P2 cheque came for collection in the said bank, the said account of the accused was not in existence and the bank had closed the said account for not keeping the minimum balance. Ext.P16(a) is the statement of account for the period from 1.7.2004 to 1.1.2008. Ext.P16(a) statement of account would show that there was no sufficient balance in the said account and therefore the bank closed the said account. Ext.P16(a) statement of account would show that when Ext.P2 cheque came for collection in the bank, there was no sufficient balance in the account of the accused. Therefore, the case of the complainant that Ext.P2 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused stands proved. 13. Ext.P16(a) statement of account would show that when Ext.P2 cheque came for collection in the bank, there was no sufficient balance in the account of the accused. Therefore, the case of the complainant that Ext.P2 cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused stands proved. 13. In NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 253 answering the question whether a dishonour of cheque with the memo of bank ‘account closed’ would attract the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the expression “the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque” is a genus of which the expression “that account being closed” is a specie. 14. Yet another contention urged by the learned counsel for the accused was that there was no service of notice to the accused as contemplated under Section 138 of the NI Act and therefore the offence under Section 138 N.I Act would not attract. 15. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, pointed out that upon receipt of Ext.P3 memo from the bank, complainant caused to issue Ext.P4 Lawyer Notice dated 29.04.2009. Ext.P5 is the Postal Receipt. But the accused purposely evaded the notice which is evident from the endorsement of the postman in Ext.P6 notice which was returned as unserved. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, since the notice which was sent in the correct address of the accused was purposely evaded by him, it is to be presumed that notice was served on him. 16. Ext.P6 is the unclaimed notice. The endorsement in Ext.P6 reveals that though intimation was given to the addressee on various dates, and the Postman attempted to serve the notice, the addressee failed to accept the notice. 17. The learned counsel for the accused advanced an argument to the effect that the meaning of service by post under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 cannot be imported to the service of notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 since Section 27 of the General Clauses Act is applicable only to the Central Act or Regulations made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act, 1897 whereas Negotiable Instruments Act is a Central Act prior to the General Clauses Act, 1897. 18. 18. Sections 27 and 29 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 are extracted hereunder: Section 27. Meaning of service by post - Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression “serve” or either of the expressions “give” or “send” or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. Section 29. Saving for previous enactment, rules and bye-laws - The provisions of this Act respecting the construction of Acts, Regulations, rules or bye-laws made after the commencement of this Act shall not affect the construction of any Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law made before the commencement of this Act, although the Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law is continued or amended by an Act, Regulation, rule or bye-law made after the commencement of this Act. 19. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act deals with the meaning of “service by post.” It provides that where any Central Act, or Regulation made after the commencement of the General Clauses Act 1897 authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression, serves or either of the expression give or send or any other expression is used then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 20. Section 29 of the General Clauses expressly states that provisions of General Clauses Act respecting the construction of Acts, Regulations, Rules or bye-laws made after the commencement of the said Act shall not affect the construction of any Act, Regulation, Rule or bye-law made before the commencement of the General Clauses Act, 1897, although the Act, Regulation, Rule or bye-law is continued or amended by an Act, Regulation, Rule or bye-law made after the commencement of General Clauses Act, 1897. 21. 21. It is to be borne in mind that under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, what is contemplated is service of notice and it does not require that the notice should be given by post. The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with the correct address of the drawer of the cheque. 22. In C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palappetty Muhammed and Another, (2007) 6 SCC 555 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that where the payee despatches the notice by registered post with correct address of the drawer of the cheque, the principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 would be attracted; the requirement of Clause (b) proviso to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stands complied with and cause of action to file a complaint arises on the expiry of the period prescribed in Clause (c) of the said proviso for payment by the drawer of the cheque. Nevertheless, it would be without prejudice to the right of the drawer to show that he had no knowledge to the notice was brought to his address. 23. In respect of communication sent by post, Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee. In view of the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 119 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) the service of notice can be presumed. The presumption arising under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act relates to an official act being done in a regular manner. One who challenges an endorsement made by the postal authority in discharge of its duties has to lead evidence to rebut the presumption arising because of the endorsement. From Ext.P6 it is evident that the intimation was given to the addressee on various dates namely on 02.05.2009, 04.05.2009, 05.05.2009, 06.05.2009, 07.05.2009, 08.05.2009 and 11.12.2009 and in spite of the intimation, the addressee failed to accept the notice. Deliberate evasion of receipt of registered notice sent by post would amount to constructive service of notice. The correctness of the endorsement made by the postman can be rebutted by the addressee by adducing adequate evidence. Deliberate evasion of receipt of registered notice sent by post would amount to constructive service of notice. The correctness of the endorsement made by the postman can be rebutted by the addressee by adducing adequate evidence. But the accused failed to do so. Thus, there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that there was no service of notice. 24. Chapter XVII contains Sections 138 to 142 of N.I Act was introduced in the Act by Act 66 of 1988 with the object of inculcating faith in the efficacy of banking operations and giving credibility to negotiable instruments in business transactions. The said provisions were intended to discourage people from not honouring their commitments by way of payment through cheques. 25. In view of Section 139 of N.I Act, it has to be presumed that a cheque is issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. This presumption coupled with the object of Chapter XVII of the Act leads to the conclusion that by countermanding payment of post-dated cheque, a party should not be allowed to get away from the penal provision of Section 138 of the Act. 26. The evidence on record would show that the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque in discharge of legally enforceable debt. It is also stands established that Ext.P2 cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured as the account had been closed by the bank since he failed to keep the minimum balance to operate the account. Thus, it stands proved that Ext.P2 cheque issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the accused and in spite of service of notice, accused failed to pay the amount covered by the said cheque. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence in Crl. Appeal No. 404/2014 of Sessions Court, Palakkad. 27. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Petition stands dismissed. 28. Revision petitioner/accused is granted time upto 28.11.2024 for remitting the fine amount before the trial court. In default of his appearance and non-payment of fine within the time fixed, the learned Magistrate shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence in accordance with law.