HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act). The contention of the petitioner’s counsel that the dishonoured cheque was given by the accused as security for running account of supply of diesel and not towards settled amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, is a question of fact which this Court may not entertain in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As per allegations in the complaint, the accused fell due to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and had drawn the dishonoured cheque in favour of the complainant for discharge of the said amount due. It is contended that after receiving the notice, the accused gave reply requesting the complainant for clarification with regard to the total amount due under the account and that pending said clarification, the complainant filed the complaint in the lower Court. The complainant cannot afford to wait for giving clarification and counter clarifications, because by that time period of limitation for lodging the complaint may expire. So the complainant need not wait to finally clarify the matter sought for by the accused in his reply notice. After receipt of dishonour memo, the complainant got issued notice to the accused by registered post within the stipulated time and it was returned unserved with endorsement that the addressee is continuously eight days absent. As per the allegations in the complaint, the accused intentionally evaded to receive the said legal notice with knowledge of all the contents of the notice. It is a matter for trial whether the said issue of notice is sufficient compliance of Section 138 (b) of the Act. By way of abundant caution, the complainant got issued another notice to the accused on 18.02.2003 by way of registered post, certificate of posting as well as courier service and the said notice was received by the accused. It is contended that the second notice is beyond 15 days prescribed time under the Act which was in force by the date of that notice. Even though the second notice dated 18.02.2003 is stated to be beyond period of limitation, the first notice is well within the period of limitation and it is for the trial Court to decide whether it is valid service or not. There are no grounds in this Criminal Petition to interfere with trial of the case in the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J December 29, 2011 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010 December 29, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDRABAD Dated: 29.12.2011 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4313 OF 2010 Between: S. Srinivasulu ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: