The instant Criminal Appeal is preferred as against the judgment passed in C.C.No.519 of 2004 on the file of the learned XVIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai dated 16.04.2009.

2. The case of the appellant is that he is the complainant in a Calendar Case No.519 of 2004. The said case was initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the appellant that the Respondent/Accused in the instant case is formerly served in the complainant private limited company as Managing Director. Since a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was misappropriated by him, the service of the respondent/accused was terminated and thereafter by accepting his guilty the Respondent/Accused issued 4 cheques each for value of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. Among the four cheques issued, one cheque was honoured and other 3 cheques drawn at ICICI Bank, West Mambalam Branch dated 12.05.2003, 16.05.2003 and 19.05.2003 were presented by the appellant/complainant on 08.10.2003 in his bank M/s. State Bank of India, Small Scale Industries Branch, Nungambakkam, Chennai. Those cheques were returned as unpaid on 09.10.2003, which constrained the Appellant/Complainant to cause a statutory demand notice on 14.10.2003 but the same was returned as unserved. Hence, the Appellant filed his complaint under section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. During the trial on the side of complainant, three witness were examined and Exhibits P1 to P15 were marked, at the same time on the side of Respondent/Accused, 2 witness were examined and Exhibits D1 to D7 were marked.

4. The specific case of Appellant/Complainant is that the Respondent/Accused is the former Managing Director of company and when he served in the company, he involved in a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. In this regard a complaint was lodged with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, T. Nagar, Chennai. The said complaint was forwarded to the file of the Inspector of Police, Sydhapet Police Station Chennai. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No. 482 of 2013 was registered as against the Respondent/Accused herein for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 506(ii) of IPC. The said complaint was marked as exhibit D5 before the learned Trial Court. In this connection DW-1 namely one Rajamani, the then Inspector of Police, Sydhapet Police Station was examined, from whose evidence, it was revealed that in respect of money transactions a complaint was lodged and the Appellant and the Respondent have undergone negotiation and thereafter the said complaint was closed as mistake of fact as the parties concerned entered into compromise.

5. The learned counsel for the Appellant/Complainant would submit that the complainant had discharged the initial burden of proof in proving that in lieu of the legally enforceable debt the cheques in dispute were issued infavour of the Appellant/Complainant. Further among the four cheques issued by the Respondent/Accused, one cheque alone was honoured, the other cheques were dishonoured. So, it could easily be presumed that the cheques were not obtained by using undue influence in the police station. He adds further that within the period of limitation, the statutory legal notice, exhibit P-8 was issued and the same was returned as un-served, but with the postal endorsement that intimation was delivered. Once the intimation is delivered by postal authority concerned, it has to be considered as the Respondent/Accused had knowledge about the demand notice. So, it is a deemed service. Unfortunately the learned Trial Court has miserably failed to appreciate the delivery of intimation by the postal authority and held that the service of statutory notice was incomplete.

6. Apart from that though the Appellant/Complainant proved that the cheques in dispute were issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt that was not considered but doubted the case of the A