1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Revision Application No.524 of 2007 Tirandas Changdev Thite Applicant Vs. Manganga Sugar cutting and Transporting Co-op. society & anr. Respondents Mr.V.V.Purwant for applicant. Mrs.P.P.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. July 31, 2008 P.C. . Heard Mr.Purwant, the learned counsel for the applicant - accused who faced the trial in Criminal case No.58 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short). The learned Judicial Magistrate, First class at Atpadi was pleased to convict the applicant for the said offence and he was sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer SI for fifteen days. the applicant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant and in default to suffer SI for one month as per the judgment and order dated 26/7/2006 in SCC No.58/2006. Being aggrieved by the said order of payment and sentence, the applicant filed Criminal Appeal No.82 of 2 2006 and the same has been dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Sangli. Hence this revision application by the accused. . Mr.Purwant, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that notice as required under Section 138 of the Act and more particularly Clause (b) of the proviso thereunder, demanding the payment of cheque amount was not served on the accused and in any case the complainant did not state on what date such a notice was served and received by the accused. This is, on the face of it, a frivolous ground. The complainant in his complaint stated that a cheque drawn in his favour (Cheque No.046035) for the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and issued by the accused was dishonoured as per the intimation received from his Bank on 2/1/2006. Advocate’s notice to the accused was sent by Registered Post A.D. on 28/1/2006 in addition to the Under Certificate of Posting mode as well. However, he received back the Registered Post unserved with a remark that the addressee did not claim as he was not available on the address. This remark was dated 8/2/2006. The complainant further stated that the notice sent by the mode of "Under Postal Certificate" was not returned. 3 . Obviously the limitation would start from 8/2/2006 for payment of cheque amount and thereafter to file the complaint. It was not the defence of the accused that there was no such endorsement on the Registered Envelope made on 8/2/2006. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court rightly relied upon the law laid down in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & anr. [(1999) 7 SCC 510] [(1999) 7 SCC 510] [(1999) 7 SCC 510]. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant and towards the discharge of liability of the cheque so dishonoured. The complainant had issued notice for demand and the same was returned unserved by the postal authorities as the accused was not available on the given address and he did not claim the registered envelope. Therefore, there is no case made out to hold that the concurrent view taken by the Courts below suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and consequently this revision must fail. The same is hereby rejected summarily.