( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal The accused is doing business under the is directed against the judgment dated name and style of 'sri Vigneshwara 27. 10. 2004 in CC No. 56 of 2003 on the file Enterprises' at Warangal and he is the sole of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I proprietor thereof. On account of close class, Warangal, wherein, the 2nd respondent acquaintance with the complainant, accused herein was acquitted of the offence under borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument complainant and executed a demand act 1881 (for short 'the Act' ). promissory note on 21. 6. 2000 as collateral security. The accused failed to repay the

( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the said amount and on persistent demands, he appellant and the learned Counsel for the issued a cheque dated 19. 7. 2002 for 2nd respondent. Perused the record. Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Development Credit bank Ltd. , Warangal for initial discharge of ( 3 ) THE appellant herein filed a the said liability. The complainant presented complaint against the respondent alleging in the said cheque for collection in Syndicate brief as follows: Bank, Warangal on 8. 8. 2002. The said cheque was returned through a return memo. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused on 14. 8. 2002 informing him that the cheque was returned due to insufficiency of funds and demanding the accused to pay the amount within 15 days. The said notice was returned un-served with endorsement 'door locked'. The accused, knowing the fact of issuance of legal notice, approached the complainant and requested him to wait for few days. Believing his words, the complainant presented the said cheque again on 20. 8. 2002 and the same was returned on the same ground of insufficient funds. The complainant got issued legal notice on 4. 10. 2002. The accused received the said notice on 5. 10. 2002 but failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint.

( 4 ) THE accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of his case, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and also examined the Assistant Manager, syndicate Bank as PW2 and marked Exs. P1 to P8. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

( 5 ) AFTER hearing both sides, the learned magistrate found the accused not guilty and acquitted him of the offence under Section 138 of the Act only on the ground that the complaint is based on the second legal notice dated 14. 10. 2002 after bouncing of the cheque for the second time is not maintainable. Aggrieved by the impugned order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the complainant,

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant-complainant would contend that the first notice got issued on 14. 8. 2002 was not received by the accused, as the said notice was returned un-served with endorsement door locked, therefore, no cause of action arose pursuant to the first legal notice dated 14. 8. 2002. He would further contend that the cause of action for the complaint arose only on the failure of the accused to pay the amount demanded by the second legal notice dated 4. 10. 2002 which the accused received on 5. 10. 2002 and therefore, the trial Court erred in holding that the complaint is not maintainable in pursuance of the second legal notice. Learned Counsel for the accused would on the other hand contend that the legal notice was issued on 14. 8. 2002 after cheque was dishonoured on 8. 8. 2002, the complainant ought to have filed, the complaint in pursuance of the said legal notice. He would further contend that presenting of the cheque again for encashment, though, it is open to the complainant to present the cheque for encashment any number of times, no cause of action would arise in pursuance of any subsequent legal notice got issued pursuant to subsequent dishonour of the cheque.

( 7 ) IN view of the rival contentions, the point that arise for consideration in the present case is whether the cause of act