138 ni act
Santosh S. Avhad
(Querist) 21 November 2012
This query is : Resolved
the complainant was sent a legal notice under section 138 N I Act through DTDC Private Courier, which is been duly served upon all the accused on the address of their office. 1) Is it valid service ? 2) is it presume as service or not? 3) what is the mode of service of notice to accused as per the law? 4) is it proper service as per the general clause act? 5) any rule or regulation about the service of notice?
advice with judgements
M.Sheik Mohammed Ali
(Expert) 21 November 2012
it is valid service, so dont confusion same time you get with proof of delivery document submit with on filing.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 21 November 2012
THERE WERE PROBLEM TO PROVE COURIER SERVICE NOTICES, AS ACCUSED MAY DENY.
REGD POST A.D., even if not accepted, or Intimation sent by Dept is valid.
Once signed on Postal or Courier is valid service.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 21 November 2012
Why compl take risk?? If sent by both mode what he loose?? Rs. 100/-
Why keep hanging sword for 2-3 years in 138 n i proceedings, if accused deny service of notice?? sec 27 Gen Clause Act is very clear.
I have citations SC disallowed courier served notices, unless accused accept it.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 21 November 2012
1. Yes. 3 Yes. 3. all which incldes courier service. 4. Yes. 5. No need for this case.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 21 November 2012
courier is valid service however advisable to send by Regd post AD or spped Post
Santosh S. Avhad
(Querist) 22 November 2012
Shroff sir, pls forward the judgement of sc disallowed courier service
ajay sethi
(Expert) 22 November 2012
Delhi High Court
Rajesh Agarwal vs State & Anr. on 28 July, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: July 12, 2010
Date of Order: 28th July, 2010
+Crl. M.C. No. 1996/2010 & Crl. M.A. No. 7672/2010
% 28.7.2010
RAJESH AGARWAL ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Manchanda, Advocate
Versus
STATE & ANR. ... Respondents Through: Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for the State.
+Crl. M.C. No.1700/2009 & Crl. M.A. No.6166/2009
SACHIN SANGAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Paul, Advocate.
Versus
PIECO CALL TECH PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Paritosh Budhiraja and Mr. Amit Kr.Sharma, Advocate.
+Crl. M.C. No.1397/2010 & Crl. M.A. No.5621/2010
SARDAR MANJEET SINGH KOHLI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Advocate.
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for the State.
+ CRL.M.C. 66/2009
SHRI PRADEEP AGGARWAL & OTHERS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal and Mr. Dharamraj Jain, Advocates
Versus
SHRI Y.K. GOEL ..... Respondent Through : Mr. D.K. Mehta, Advocate
Crl.M.C. 1996.10, 1700.09, 1397.10, 66.09, 59.09, 60.09 Page 1 of 13 +CRL.M.C. 59/2009
PRADEEP AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal and Mr. Dharamraj Jain, Advocates
Versus
Y.K.GOEL ..... Respondent Through : Mr. D.K. Mehta, Advocate
+ CRL.M.C. 60/2009
PRADEEP AGGARWAL & ORS ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Randhir Jain, Mr. Deepak Aggarwal and Mr. Dharamraj Jain, Advocates
Versus
Y.K.GOEL ..... Respondent Through : Mr. D.K. Mehta, Advocate
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
13)Under section 144 of N.I. Act service of accused can be effected through registered post/speed post or by courier service and if the accused refuses to receive the summons, he can be declared served and court can take coercive measures for entering appearance of the accused. Chapter VI of Cr. P.C., under section 62, 63 and 64, provides how summons are to be served on accused persons by police. Section 65 thereof provides that if service cannot be effected in the manner as provided in section 62, 63 or 64 of Cr. P.C., the serving officer shall affix one copy summon on some conspicuous part of his house or area in which the accused resides and the court after making such inquiries may declare that the summons have been duly served. Thus service by affixation is a valid mode of service under criminal law and wherever the accused is evading his service, the court of MM should direct service through affixation as provided under section 65 of Cr. P.C. and in case the accused does not appear the court is at liberty to take steps for coercive appearance.
Santosh S. Avhad
(Querist) 22 November 2012
my quary relating the mode of service of notice . private courier service is valid or not. if any rule or not.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 22 November 2012
pvt couurier service is valid .
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 25 November 2012
Private courier service is a proper service as decided in the above mentioned judgment.
