Vaman Rao, J. - This petition is filed under Section 482, Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 110/98 on the file of the Vth Addl. Munsif Magistrate. Guntur in which the petitioner herein is the accused.

2. A complaint has been filed against the petitioner for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act with an allegation that in respect of a handloan obtained by the accused he had issued a cheque in favour of the complainant - respondent No. 2 herein which bounced. A notice as per the complain has been sent to the accused which was returned with a postal endorsement as "not claimed returned to the sender".

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act unless a notice demanding the amount covered by the cheque bounced is sent to the accused within 15 days from the date of receipt of information by the complainant from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque no prosecution can lie against the accused on the ground that the cheque issued by him bounced.

4. The contention in this case is that in view of the postal endorsement on the notice sent by the complainant it is quite obvious that the notice was not received by the petitioner-accused herein. No such presumption could arise from the postal endorsement referred to. The fact remains that a notice was in - fact addressed to the petitioner herein by Registered Post. The question as to under what circumstances the notice was returned and as to what is the purport of the endorsement made on the letter are questions of facts which have to be gone into during the trial One of the meanings of the endorsement could be that when the letter was tendered to the petitioner it was not accepted which may amount to refusal to receive the letter. However, it is possible that the letter might have been tendered to a wrong person who might have refused to claim it as not being addressed to him. Whether the return of the postal cover was for either of these reasons is a matter of enquiry and a question of fact.

5. Under these circumstances as this is the only ground on which the quashing of proceedings is sought it must be held that the requirements under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings have not been made out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further represents that for the appearance of the petitioner NBW has been issued. It is pleaded that the petitioner himself will appear before the lower Court on the due date of hearing. Under these circumstances the petitioner is directed to appear before the lower Court within one week from the date of this order and on such appearance the NBW issued against him shall be recalled and he will be bound over to attend the Court on the next date of hearing.

6. With this direction this petition is dismissed.