1. The complainant is in appeal. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused therein was acquitted by the learned Magistrate under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. mainly on the ground that the statutory notice sent by the complainant was not served on him. The notice was returned with an endorsement “door locked”.

2. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that though the findings on other points were entered by the learned Magistrate in favour of the complainant, based on a wrong finding regarding the notice sent the accused was acquitted. This appeal is filed challenging the verdict of acquittal.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that even the evidence given by DW.2, the post man would show that Ext.P4 notice was taken to the house of the accused in the address shown therein. There was no case for the accused that he was not residing in the address shown in Ext.P4 notice. Even if it is accepted that the accused had left the house to some other place for a few months that is no reason to say that the statutory notice was not sent as required under the Proviso to Section 138 of N.I. Act.

4. The suggestion put to PW.1 by the