The challenge in the appeal is with regard to the acquittal of the accused in the complaint filed by the appellant alleging offence under Section 136 of N.I. Act against the first respondent herein.

The complainant alleged that on receipt of a sum of Rs. 85,000/- from him as loan, the first respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque on 3-9-1996; that the cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured for want of funds vide Exts. P2 and P3; that he sent Ext. P4 notice intimating the dishonour and demanding payment and that Ext. P5 is the envelope whereby the notice was returned. He also stated in his evidence as PW 1 that Ext. P5 was returned without acceptance deliberately and that the complainant had even intimated the fact of dishonour of the cheque to the accused in person.

According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the acquittal of the accused as per impugned judgment is for trivial and untenable reasons.

According to the respondent, as long as the postman remains unexamined, refusal to accept Ext. P4 notice cannot be inferred. He would urge that the burden in the matter lay with the complainant.

On the arguments advanced in the case, the points that arise for decision are