AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 2179

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Karnataka)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): B. P. Singh, R. V. Raveendran , JJ

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138 Proviso (c)— Interpretation of statute - Notice demanding cheque amount - Service of - Presumption as to - Cannot be drawn in all cases where notice is not served on account of non-availability of addressee - No suchrule of universal application can be laid down and question depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Heydon's Rule of purposive construction applies. The question is whether in a case where the postal endorsement shows that the notice could not be served on account of the non-availability of the addressee, a cause of action may still arise for prosecution of the drawer of the cheque on the basis of deemed service of notice under cl. (c) of proviso' to S. 138 of the Act. This question has to'be answered by reference to the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down that in all cases where notice is not served on account of non-availability of the addressee. the Court must presume service of notice. It is well settled that in interpreting a statute the Court must adopt that construction which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy. This is a rule laid down in 76 ER 637 also known as the rule of purposive construction or mischief rule. The proviso (c) to S. 138 is meant to protect honest drawers whose cheques may have been dishonoured for the fault of....