( 1 ) IT is the case of the petitioner-accused that there was no service of demand notice on him and as such, the complaint is not maintainable and consequently, the proceedings initiated on the complaint require to be quashed. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondent-complainant that though the legal notice sent through RPAD was returned with an endorsement as "no such addressee", the demand notice sent under certificate of posting was duly served on the petitioner-accused and thereafter petitioner-accused had personally approached seeking sometime telling that he is in difficulties and hence, the complaint is maintainable.

( 2 ) IT is trite that giving notice in writing, demanding the cheque amount after cheque is returned dishonoured, is a must as per proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this case; there is no dispute about giving such a notice. What is in dispute is, whether or not, there was service of such notice on the petitioner-accused.

( 3 ) IT was vehemently argued for the petitioner-accused that simply because notice was sent under certificate of posting, it cannot be taken that petitioner was served with that