rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2550 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2550 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2550 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 Sudhir Murlidhar Ratnaparkhi .. Applicant Vs. Madan Manikchand Gundecha & Anr. .. Respondent Mr.Sandeep S.Salunkhe for the Applicant. Mr.Rajan Salvi for Respondent No.1. Ms.A.T.Javeri,A.P.P. for State. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant. The application is for leave to prefer an appeal under sub section 4 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order of acquittal has been passed on the ground that the notice of demand was not duly served to the first Respondent/accused. The case of the Applicant is that legal notice dated 4th October, 2006 was sent by R.P.A.D. as well as under certificate of posting. ( 2 ) The envelope sent by the Registered Post A.D. was returned unserved with the remark "not claimed, returned to sender". The learned Judge observed that the address of the accused mentioned in the complaint and in the notice is M.M.Traders, Amit Complex, infront of Kamat Hotel, Chafekar Chowk, Chinchwadgaon, Pune and whereas in the license issued to the accused under the Shops and Establishment Act, 1948, the address mentioned is M.M.Traders, Shop No.3, Amit Building, A/2 infront of Pune Peoples’ Bank, Chinchwad. The learned Judge noted that the accused denied the correctness of the address mentioned in the complaint as well as in the notice. Reliance is placed on the answer given by the accused in 2nd question in statement under section 313 of the said Code of 1973. The said answer does not prove that the correct address of the place of business of the accused is M.M.Traders, Amit Complex, infront of Kamat Hotel, Chafker Chowk, Chinchwad, Pune. The address of the accused mentioned in the notice and the one mentioned in the shop licence is materially different. The Applicant has not examined the postman to show that intimation was posted at the correct address. ( 3 ) 2. Considering this aspect, the learned Judge has taken a view that the Applicant has failed to prove the service of demand notice. The view taken by the learned Judge is a possible view and no interference is called for. The Application is, accordingly, rejected. (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.)