HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.10743 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioner is accused of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C.No.339 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nalgonda. Cheque drawn by the petitioner/accused in favour of the second respondent/complainant was dishonoured and it resulted in the second respondent filing the present case in the lower Court. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that two post dated cheques were drawn in favour of the complainant by the accused as per terms of agreement, dated 26.03.2008, entered into between them in connection with the running of oldage home, and that the second respondent will be entitled to present the cheques only in case the petitioner committed default under the agreement, and after issuing notice of default of the petitioner and that without serving any notice complaining default, the second respondent has no authority to present one of the cheques for encashment. In my opinion, this submission of the petitioner’s counsel relates to appreciation of evidence to be let in by both the parties during trial before the lower Court. This Court cannot undertake pre-trial enquiry in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that as per proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, complainant is under an obligation to serve statutory notice to the accused within the prescribed time after dishonour of the cheque and that the petitioner was not served with any such notice by the second respondent after the dishonour and that therefore the criminal case instituted by the second respondent in the lower Court is not maintainable. Averments in the complaint disclose that the statutory notice was addressed by the complainant to the accused, but it was returned unserved. It is now well settled that if the statutory notice is addressed to correct address of the accused, it may not matter whether it is served or unserved. The question whether address mentioned on the notice cover is correct address or not, is again a question of fact, which has to be decided by the trial Court after trial. Thus, I do not find any valid or legal reasons for quashing the proceedings in this case. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 29th September, 2010. PNV