Bombay Act 1882

Although very late but I beg to differ from my learned friends on this issue. Please read the following :

It has been held by courts in many other cases also that in case of
UPCs, the receipt of which is denied by the addressee, then the onus
to prove that the letter was posted  and received by the addressee
rests on the sender.

In Subash Chandra Verma V State of Bihar (1995 Supp (1) SCC 325) the
Supreme Court has observed that when some important communication is
sent, the best way is to either lodge the same personally or send it
by registered post and not by UPC. In Gadakh Yashwantrao V EV Alias
Balasheb Vikhe ( 1994 1 SCC 682), the Supreme Court has observed that
when the receipt of a letter sent by UPC is denied by the addressee,
the likelihood of its dispatch by the sender is extremely doubtful
since it was not sent by registered post and a certificate of posting
being easy to obtain is not reliable. In  Shiv Kumar V State of
Haryana (1994 4 SCC 445) also the Apex Court has observed that it is
not safe to decide a controversy at hand on the basis of the
certificate of posting as it is not difficult to get such postal seals
at any time.    Further, in LMS Ummu Saleema V BB Gujral ( AIR 1981 SC
1191), the Apex Court has pointed out “ The certificate of posting
might lead to a presumption that a letter addressed to the
Asst.Collector of Customs was posted on 14.8.1980 and in due course
reached the addressee. But that is only a permissible and not an
inevitable presumption. Neither Section 16 nor Section 114 of the
Evidence Act compel a court to draw a presumption. On the facts and
circumstances of a case the court may refuse to draw the presumption”.
It has been held by courts in many other cases also that in case of
UPCs, the receipt of which is denied by the addressee, then the onus
to prove that the letter was posted  and received by the addressee
rests on the sender.
 

what this going on?