In this appeal filed by the complainant, the only question that arises for consideration is whether there was demand, in terms of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short ‘the Act’) for payment of the amount covered by the cheque in question.

2. The cheque was one issued by the accused, on 13.2.1993. It bounced for want of sufficient funds in the account maintained by the accused. These are not disputed facts. Ext.P4 is the notice issued by the complainant to the accused on 25.8.1993 demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque. But, it did not reach the hands of the accused, though it was in the last known address of the accused, while he was in India. It was returned unserved on the reason that the accused had left for abroad. This is the defence adopted by the accused before me as well as before the court below.

3. It is in evidence through DE.1 a jeep driver, that he had taken the accused as well as the complainant in his jeep to Thiruvananthapuram Airport and that the accused had left India for Muscat from Thiruvananthapuram Airport and that the accused had left India for Muscat from Thiruvananthapuram on 1