Mohamed Anwar, J. - The argument of learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ramachandra Reddy was heard. The argument of respondent's learned counsel could not be heard as he did not choose to be preseft when the matter was taken up for hearing.

2. The petitioner who is the accused in Crl. case No. 16209/95 on the complaint of respondent made before the learned Magistrate on 15-12-1994 alleging commission of an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short) has filed this petition under Sec. 482 Cr. P.C. praying to quash criminal proceeding against him before the learned Magistrate on the ground that the cognizance of the offence taken by him by his order dated 1-3-1995 was illegal and without jurisdiction in the absence of proof of the date on which the complainant's demand notice under Sec. 138( c) of the Act was stated to have been issued by complainant's advocate.

3. The certified copy of the order sheet of the court-below in the said C.C. 16209/95 (PCR 568/94) is produced along with the petition. Similarly the xerox copies and the certified copies of the said complaint dated 15-12-1994 as also the bank's endorsement is produced along with the petition. In addition xerox copies of the certified copies of the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate together with the xerox copies of the certified copy of Ex. P2. Ex. P4 xerox copy of the certified copy of both sides of postal cover and Ex. P5 xerox copy of certificate of posting are produced.

4. The case of the complainant against the petitioner accused is that at the "request of the latter the former had advanced a loan of Rs. 15,000/% in cash and towards repayment thereof the accused had passed the cheque bearing No. 898721 dated 19-10-1994 in complainant's favour which was drawn on Syndicate Bank, Ganganagar, Bangalore. When the said cheque was presented to the said bank by the complainant on 9-11-1994 the same was returned dishonoured by the bank with its shara funds insufficient dated 10-11-1994. Then the complainant got issued the legal notice dated 21-11-1994 at Ex. P3 both by registered post and by postal certificate to the accused informing him of the dishonour of the said cheque and demanding of him the payment of the said cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of that notice. Both the said notices were so sent to the accused on his official address and they were returned served on him with the postal endorsement 'no such person in that address'. Then the same notice was sent by the complainant to the accused to his residential address under Ex. P5 the postal certificate. Despite the said demand notice when the accused failed to pay the said amount, the complainant had to file his complaint before the learned Magistrate on 15-12-1994 alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the Act. On that complaint learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant on 25-2-1995 who spoke to the contents of his complaint and produced documents Ex. PI to P5. On the strength of that statement the "learned" Magistrate passed .an order dated 1-3-1995 holding that a prima facie case was made out by the accused and hence he directed issue of summons for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Act.

5. The maintainability of the prosecution proceedings before the learned Magistrate stands challenged by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the material so placed on record by the complainant does not disclose the actual date of service of the said demand notice Ex. P2 on the accused so as to give rise to cause of action for the complainant to initiate criminal prosecution against the former. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that under Sec. 138(c) of the Act. It was imperative requirement for the complainant to place sufficient material establishing the actual date of demand notice contemplated thereunder. In the absence of that date, i