R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Heard.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 18.3.2006, whereby the complaint filed by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act', for short) has been dismissed on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant is not entitled for presumption about the service of notice which is statutorily required to be given before initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act and, secondly, that the Exhibit 36 which was claimed by the appellant to be the confirmation of the balance amount due from the respondent was a concocted and fabricated piece of evidence and that, therefore, the appellant has miserably failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

3. The learned Advocate for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment and order submitted that the learned Magistrate erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled for the presumption regarding the service of notice upon the respondent, when the evidence on record proves to the contrary and further he erred in holding that the electoral roll-Exhibit 4 is the conclusive evidence of the correct address of the respondent No. 1, parti