Supreme Court: Cheque-bounce notice sent to the right address is valid even if a relative takes it; M.D. Thomas per incuriam
The question: Is the requirement of 'giving' notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 satisfied when a correctly addressed registered notice is received by the drawer's mother, not by the drawer?
The Supreme Court on 30 September 2026 held that a statutory demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is validly given once it is dispatched by registered post to the drawer's correct address, even if a family member receives it. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Manmohan (judgment by Justice Manmohan) set aside a Kerala High Court order that had acquitted an accused on the ground that the notice was received by his mother, and restored his conviction. In doing so, the Court held that its own earlier decision in M.D. Thomas v. P.S. Jaleel (2009) 14 SCC 398, which had set aside a conviction because the notice went to the drawer's wife, was per incuriam and not binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. The appellant, Sainaba, alleged that the second respondent had borrowed Rs 3,00,000 from her and issued a cheque (No. 479097) on the Catholic Syrian Bank, Perumbavoor Branch, which was dishonoured. She sent a statutory demand notice dated 31 August 2016 by registered post to his correct address, where it was received by his mother. He neither paid nor replied, and she filed a complaint (S.T. Case No. 114 of 2017). In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he said that he had borrowed Rs 7,00,000 in all and repaid it, and that he had given a blank signed cheque when he borrowed Rs 3,00,000. The Trial Court convicted him on 10 July 2019 and sentenced him to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs 3,00,000, with a default term of further imprisonment. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge on 16 February 2023. The Kerala High Court, in a revision (Crl. R.P. No. 865 of 2023) decided on 29 July 2025, set aside the concurrent findings, holding that unless there was evidence that the accused was aware of the notice received by his mother, service could not be concluded. The complainant appealed. Despite service of notice on him on 11 December 2025, the second respondent did not appear, and the State of Kerala said it was not a contesting respondent.