), 2007 (55 )AIC57 (S.C. ), 2007 (2 )ALD(Cri)294 , 2007 (58 ) ACC 840 , II (2007 )BC533 , III (2007 )BC533 (SC ), 2007 (4 )BomCR314 , III (2007 )CCR118 (SC ), 2007 (2 )CLJ(SC )153 , [2007 ]137 CompCas692 (SC ), 2007 CriLJ3214 , 2007 (3 )Crimes120 (SC ), 2007 GLH(2 )512 , ILR2007 (3 )Kerala203 , 2007 INSC 628 , [2007 (3 )JCR209 (SC )], JT2007 (7 )SC 498 , 2007 (3 )KLJ81 , 2007 (3 )KLT77 (SC ), 2008 (3 )MhLj115 , 2008 (1 )MhLJ44 (SC), 2008 MPLJ441 (SC), 2007 (II )OLR384 , 2007 (II )OLR(SC )384 , (2007 )147 PLR813 , 2007 (3 )RCR(Criminal)185 , RLW2007 (3 )SC 2120 , 2007 (7 )SCALE380 , (2007 )6 SCC555 , [2007 ]77 SCL117 (SC ), [2007 ]7 SCR326 , 2007 (2 )UJ675 , ,MANU/SC/2263/2007
K.G. Balakrishnan#R.V. Raveendran#Devinder Kumar Jain#3339SC4840Judgment/OrderACR#AIC#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#BC#BC#BomCR#CCR#CLJ#CompCas#CriLJ#Crimes#GLH#ILR (Kerala)#INSC#JCR#JT#KLJ#KLT#MANU#MhLJ#MhLJ#MPLJ#OLR#OLR#PLR#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCL#SCR#UJDevinder Kumar Jain,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2012-9-24Meaning of service by post,Miscellaneous,Statute relating to the General Clauses,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Court may presume existence of certain facts,Interpretation of Statutes25842,15717,25842,25843,25844,25845,25846,28247,17483 -->
MANU/SC/2263/2007
True Court CopyTM EnglishILR-Ker KLJ OLR
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 2007
Decided On: 18.05.2007
Appellants: C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Respondent: Palapetty Muhammed and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.G. Balakrishnan, R.V. Raveendran and Devinder Kumar Jain JUDGMENT
Devinder Kumar Jain, J.
1. Leave granted. The matter has been placed before the three Judge Bench in view of a Reference made by a two-Judge Bench of this Court, pertaining to the question of service of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso of notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short The Act). Observing that while rendering the decision in D. Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa MANU/SC/8187/2006 : (2006) 6 SCC 456 this court has not taken into consideration the presumption in respect of an official act as provided under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the following question has been referred for consideration of the larger Bench:
Whether in absence of any averments in the complaint to the effect that the accused had a role to lay in the matter of non-receipt of legal notice; or that the accused deliberately avoided service of notice, the same could have been entertained keeping in view the decision of this Court in Vinod Shivappas case (supra)?
2. As it hardly needs emphasis that necessary averments in re........