The central legal point established is the requirement of proper service of notice and adherence to the timeline for filing a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Complainant has come forward with this appeal against the order of acquittal, acquitting the Respondents / Accused 1 to 3 under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.115 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem by the Judgment dated 16.10.1997.

2. The relevant facts could briefly be stated thus:- A.1 - M/s. Hope Knitting Home is a partnership firm, which had business transaction with the Complainant on credit. A.2 and A.3 are the partners of A.1 firm. In the course of business dealings, A.2 and A.3 representing as partners of A.1 firm, issued a cheque No.C3/94, 421769 dated 05.09.1995 drawn on Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Tirupur for a sum of Rs.1,75,750/- under Ex.P.2 in favour of the Complainant for the amount due on credit purchase. The Complainant presented Ex.P.2 - cheque for collection for the second time in his bank viz., Bank of Baroda. The Cheque - Ex.P.2 was returned with Ex.P.3 - Memo dated 22.12.1995 with an endorsement " Insufficient Funds " in the Account of the Accused. On 28.12.1995, the Complainant's Bank intimated the Complainant regarding the dishonour of the Cheque under Ex.P.4 - Memo.

3. The Complainant issued Ex.P.5 - Statutory Notice to the Accused on 30.12.1995. A.1 and A.2 refused to receive the notice and the same was returned as "Intimated Unclaimed". Exs.P.6 and P.7 are the returned Postal Covers. A.3 was served with notice and Ex.P.8 is the acknowledgement dated 01.01.1996. The Accused did not pay the Cheque amount even after 15 days. Hence, the Complaint was filed on 15.02.1996 under Sec.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.

4. To substantiate the averments in the complaint, in the Trial Court, Complainant was examined as P.W.1 and Bank Officials were examined as P.W.2 (Rajan) and P.W.3 (Sundararajan). No evidence was adduced onbehalf of the Accused. The Accused raised the defence that there was no proper service of notice. They have also raised the point that the complaint was not filed within the stipulated time i.e. on or before 14.02.1996, but filed on 15.02.1996, which is barred by limitation.

5. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced and the contentions urged, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents / Accused 1 to 3 interalia on the following findings:-

(i) Notice sent to A.1 and A.2 was returned under Exs.P.6 and P.7 as " Intimated Unclaimed " and that there was no proper service of notice upon A.1 and A.2;

(ii) That notice sent to A.3 was served upon one Mohan, who had received the same onbehalf of one Nirmal Textiles Process and that there is no link evidence as to how the said Mohan is connected to Bastin Yesudass - A.3 and hence, there is no proper service of notice upon A.3;

(iii)That the Complaint filed on 15.02.1996 is not filed within the stipulated time.

6. Aggrieved over the same, the Complainant has come forward with this appeal. Assailing the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court, the learned Senior counsel Mr.B.Sriramulu contended that the findings of the Trial Court faulting the Complainant in not taking further steps in issuing the second notice is erroneous. Placing reliance upon the case of K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (A.I.R. 1999 Supreme Court 3762), it is contended that mere sending of notice to the address of the Accused is sufficient to raise the presumption of " Deemed service of Notice " or otherwise the Respondents / Accused 1 to 3 might adopt the strategy by successfully avoiding the receipt of the notice.

7. Contention of Respondents 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2. Supporting the findings of the Trial Court, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 submitted that there was no proper service of notice as contemplated and when the notice was returned under Exs.P.6 and P.7 covers as " Intimated Unclaimed ", there cannot be presumption of proper service of notice in demanding the amount. It is further submitted that the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 14.02.1996 and that the complaint filed on 15.02.1996