This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Gobichettipalayam.

2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant on 18.02.2002 and to discharge the same, the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing No.773379 for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- dated 18.03.2002. When the complainant had presented the said cheque for collection on 18.07.2002 before the Indian Overseas Bank, Modachur Branch, Gobi, the cheque got bounced and returned to the complainant on 22.07.2002 with an endorsement Stop Payment, since he had no sufficient amount in his account to pay the cheque amount. Therefore, the complainant issued a registered lawyer's notice on 05.08.2002 to the accused, however, the accused did not claim notice and the notice was returned to the complainant on 12.08.2002 and therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned Judicial MagistrateNo.1, Gobichettipalayam found primafacie case as against the accused, has taken cognizance and taken the complaint on file in C.C.No.222 of 2002.

3. In order to prove the case of the appellant/complainant, on the side of the complainant, as many as 4 witnesses, P.W.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.P1 to 7 were marked. P.W.1 is the complainant and he has spoken about the borrowal of amount by the accused and issuance of cheque Ex.P1 and when it was presented for collection, the same got bounced and returned with the return memo Ex.P2 and the issuance of legal notice Ex.P3 to the accused, which was returned and also spoken about the filing of the complaint. P.W.2 is the Joint Manager of the Indian Overseas Bank and he has spoken about the presentation of the complainant and the return of the same. P.W.3 is the Branch Manager of Karur Vysia Bank and he has spoken about the return of the cheque issued by the accused, who is having account bearing Account No.336 in the name of T.S. Subramaniam and sons (Firm). P.W.4 is the postman, who has spoken that he does not know about P.S. Subramaniam and he knew only about T.S.S. Subramaniam and he has stated that there is no other Sivakumar except one Sivakumar, son of T.S. Subramaniam in Thiruvengadapalayam.

4. After examining the above said witnesses, the incriminating evidence as against the accused were put to him, for which, the accused denied the same as false and in order to disprove the case of complainant, though no oral witness was examined, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the accused.

5. The trial Court, after completion of trial, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant and the accused found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stating that the statutory notice was not addressed to the correct address of the accused and the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint is differed from the returned postal cover and giving benefit of doubt to the accused, the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant has sent the notice to last known address of the accused. The accused has purposefully has given the said wrong address. Once notice sent to correct address under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, it is a deemed service and the trial Court failed to consider the above said aspect and acquitted the accused. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another reported in (2007) 6 SCC 555 and prayed for allowing of the appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that no notice has been sent by the