THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Crl.A.No.252 OF 2007 BETWEEN: T. Venkam Raju, S/o. late T.V. Rama Raju, R/o. Plot No.13, Umanagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. PETITIONER And 1. Gandam Ramesh, S/o. LATE Gandam Narahari, R/o. H.No.1-9- 5/1, II Floor, Near Venkateswara Temple, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioner: Sri T. Sesham Raju Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri J. Baladitya Counsel for Respondent No.2: Additional Public Prosecutor The Court made the following order: ORDER: Unsuccessful complainant in C.C. relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) is the appellant. He filed C.C.No.550 of 2002 in the lower Court against the accused/first respondent for the above offence, when Ex.P.6-cheque issued by him for Rs.1,10,000/- was dishonoured. The only ground on which the lower Court acquitted the accused is based on decision of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar[1]. Admittedly the complainant got issued legal notice to the accused one week or ten days after dishonour of the cheque calling upon the accused to pay the cheque amount; and again issued a second legal notice Ex.P.8 dated 2.04.2002 for the same purpose and filed the present case in the lower Court within 15 days thereafter. The lower Court pointed out that it is the first notice which alone constitutes cause of action for filing the case under Section 138 of the Act and that the second notice cannot form basis for filing the case. The said proposition of law is based on the above reported decision of the Supreme Court. The order of acquittal passed by the lower Court is legal and proper. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ________________________________ (SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J.) 21st July, 2010 Js. [1] AIR 1998 SUPREME COURT 3043