( 1 ) THE petitioner in the above criminal petitions is the accused in C. C. Nos. 393 to 420 of 1994, on the file of the XIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad. As the respondent in all the petitions is also the same and as the point involved in all these petitions is also the same, all the petitions are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are briefly as follows : The first respondent, A. P. Travel and Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Secunderabad, is owned by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the main objects of the corporation are to run, establish and manage transport units and transport centres and operate services and tours, etc. The petitioner-accused, the proprietor of Sri Venkateswara Travel Agency, approached the complainant to appoint him as the authorised agent of the complainant in Amalapuram to operate the services and tours from Amalapuram. Accordingly, he was appointed as the authorised agent for operation of buses from Amalapuram to Hyderabad and back on 30/08/1993. The agent has to deposit Rs. 30,000 as security deposit. It is further alleged that the accused had to deposit a minimum occupancy guarantee of 75 per cent. of Rs. 150 per seat one way and Rs. 300 two ways by way of demand draft in advance, before the vehicle moves from the garage and he deposited the same for some time. Subsequently, he requested to permit him to pay the said amount through cheques and the complainant has accepted the request of the petitioner/accused. Then the accused-petitioner started issuing account payee cheques drawn on the State Bank of India, Ambajipet branch, in favour of the complainant. Thus, the accused gave several cheques and when they were presented through the bankers, the State Bank of Hyderabad, Begumpet branch, pertaining to the above cases, they were returned with a reason "not arranged for" and when the complainant contacted the petitioner-accused, he requested the complainant to resubmit the cheques and again the cheques were returned with an endorsement "balance not sufficient". Then the complainant got issued notices to the petitioner-accused, which were returned with an endorsement "at present the addressee is residing at Gangalakurru Agraharam as per the detailed enquiry conducted" and re-directed to the sender. The accused failed to pay the amount and hence the complaints were filed within one month after expiry of the 15 days from the date of notice.

( 3 ) THE said cases were taken on the file as C. C. Nos. 393 to 420 of 1994.

( 4 ) THE accused filed Crl. M. P. Nos. 1301 to 1329 of 1995 to drop the proceedings against him mainly contending that the legal notice was not served on the accused, and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable.

( 5 ) THE learned magistrate, after considering the endorsement on the returned notices, observed that the complainant has bona fide sent the notices to the known address of the accused and they were returned because the petitioner-accused was not available at the address. He further observed that it is always open to the petitioner-accused to establish that the complaint purposefully did not send the notice to his correct address and had personal knowledge of his address and dismissed the petitions.

( 6 ) NOW, the petitioner filed these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to quash the proceedings.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that when admittedly the notice was not served on the petitioner-accused, the complaint is not maintainable and he relied on a decision in L. Mani v. Kandan Finance [1996] 86 Comp Cas 205 (Mad ). He further relied on a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Kharar Rice and General Mills v. Jiwa Ram Prakash [1995] ISJ (Banking) 562.

( 8 ) BUT learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the address of the petitioner is Venkateswara Travel Agents, Main Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District an