Honble YAMIN, J. – This is a petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. (2). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor in detail. I have also gone through the order of learned Magistrate as well as learned Addl. Sessions Judge. (3). Briefly stated, petitioner worked on Indira Gandhi Nahar for transporting sand from different places. He worked for Kishore Vyas, non-petitioner No. 2. TruckNos. RJS/5954 and RJ-19/6243 were used for the purpose. For this work non-petitioner No. 2 Kishore Vyas handed over a cheque to the petitioner for Rs. 20,000/- on 20.4.93. The same was dishonoured. Notice was served on 10.9.93. A complaint was filed on 28.9.93 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Thereafter learned Magistrate examined the complaint under Sec. 200 Cr.P.C. anddismissed the complaint on 31.1.94. A revision was filed against the order which was dismissed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur on 16.4.94. Hence this revision petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. was filed. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate did not properly appreciate the evidence. He could have summoned the non-petitioner for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC but he did not do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it is not necessary that the notice should be given in writing. He has also submitted that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had alsocommitted illegality in dismissing the revision. (5). Sec. 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides that notice of dishonour may be given to duly authorised agent of the person or where he has died to his legal representatives and where he has been declared insolvent to his assignee. The notice may be oral or in writing. If it is in writing it may be sent by post. Learnedcounsel for the petitioner submitted that the notice may be even oral but here I find that a notice in writing was given on 10.9.93. No copy of notice was submitted before the learned Magistrate and complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate found that though the postman went to the place of non-petitioner No. 2 time and again yet the notice could not be delivered to him. No copy of notice was submitted before the learned Magistrate and complaint was filed. Learned Magistrate found that though the postman went to the place of non-petitioner No. 2 time and again yet the notice could not be delivered to him. Therefore, according to the provisionsof Sec. 138 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the notice then only he can be reliable. There is evidence to the effect that the notice was not delivered to him. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was right in not summoning non-petitioner No. 2 as an accused. I do not agree that acase under Sec. 420 IPC was made out. I find that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also not committed any illegality and the petitioner has filed this petition as a second revision which cannot be allowed. (6). There is no force in this petition as there is no abuse of process of court or it is not necessary to secure the ends of justice. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.