K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.—The complainant before the trial court is the appellant herein. He filed a complaint against the respondents 1 and 2 herein, alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the Act’). The trial Court acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal.

2. Whether there was notice, in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, is the moot question involved in this case.

3. Ext. P1 cheque issued by the accused bounced, when presented to the bank. This resulted in a notice, copy of which is produced as Ext. P3. But, the notice addressed to the accused returned back to the sender unclaimed. Ext. P5 series are the notices so returned. In the light of these facts, it is contended by the appellant that he had discharged the part of his duty in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act, by making a demand in the notice addressed to on the accused persons, for repayment of the amount covered by the cheque Ext. P. 1, which bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the accused. The postman took the notice to the residence of the accused. They were absent. It was repeated o