APEAL.86-01 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 86 OF 2001 Motilal Netram Mishra ...Appellant Vs. Gajadhar M. Sharma & Anr. ...Respondents *** None for the Appellant. Mr. B. J. Mulchandani, for Respondent No.1. Mr. A. S. Shitole, APP for Respondent-State. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 P.C. 1. None appears for the appellant. Heard the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned APP. The original complainant has filed the complaint under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on account of dishonour of cheque which was given to the complainant by the accused. 2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the statutory notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused. According to the complainant, notice which was sent by him by R.P.A.D. was returned unserved with an endorsement “unclaimed”. The evidence APEAL.86-01 - 2 - of PW 2 – Abdul Arif Abdul Quadar shows that he was a postman, working in Dandekar Post Office. He had stated that his office maintained the record of R.P.A.D. but did not maintain the record about U.P.C. He stated that R.P.A.D. acknowledgment is to be sent to the sender after obtaining his signature and if the concerned person is not available, an endorsement is made “left address” and if the addressee is not found on the given address for three days then written notice is to given to the addressee to collect the letter from the post office. The remark is to be passed on envelope stating that intimation is given. On the 5th day document is sent to the sender as unclaimed. 3. The trial Court has observed that the complainant has failed to prove that he had served a notice on the accused by R.P.A.D. and though he claims to have sent a notice under U.P.C. It was difficult to ascertain this fact since the register for the same was not maintained by the postal authority. The trial Court held that the complainant had not proved the service of demand notice. In my view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such there is no need to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the criminal appeal is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]