Anand Byrareddy, J.— Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the respondent has remained absent even though the matter was adjourned several times to enable the Counsel to appear and contest the case.

2. The petitioner herein was the accused on a complaint by the respondent, alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Act, for brevity).

3. The facts of the case are as follows:

It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner had borrowed Rs.10,00,000 and had sought to refund the same, by issuing a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,00,000 dated 15.11.1998. When the same was presented for encashment, the petitioner’s banker is said to have returned the same with an endorsement, dated 17.11.1998, that there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. A notice dated 24.11.1998 was issued by the respondent through his Counsel. Though the petitioner is said to have received the same, since he did not meet the demand for refund of the money covered under the cheque, a private complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred