JUDGMENT Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - An order of conviction and sentences passed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court also the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta has been assailed in this revisional application. 2. The accused/petitioner is undisputedly the proprietor of D.K. International having its registered office at 2B, Grant Street, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party is the Director of M/s. Siewart and Dholakia Ltd. having its registered office at P-35. India Exchange Place, Calcutta. The complainant/opposite party filed a complaint on 15-4-92, against the revision petitioner under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, inter alia alleging that the accused/petitioner in discharge of his existing liability issued an A/C Payee Cheque being Cheque No. 021573 dated 31-1-92 of Rs. 10,00,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda. Chakraberia Branch in favour of the complainants company M/s. Siywart and Dholakia Ltd. The complainant/ opposite party presented the cheque for encashment with its Banker, namely Bank of America. 8. India Exchange Place. Calcutta. But the said cheque was dishonored on 10-2-92 with remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the complainant/ opposite party sent a notice on 14-2-92 through his learned advocate under registered post with A/D demanding the said amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. It has been inter alia stated by the complainant/opposite party that the notice was received by the accused/petitioner on 2-3-92, but it appears that the accused/petitioner did not take any steps either to pay the amount or to send any reply to the said notice. Therefore, the complainant/opposite party was obliged to file a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) being Case No. C-586/92. Process was issued against the petitioner, which in course of time was transferred to the court of 11th Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for its disposal. 3. The accused/petitioner has however, denied his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant/opposite party. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had no notice under section 138 of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount. 4. 3. The accused/petitioner has however, denied his liability to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the complainant/opposite party. It has been further submitted that the petitioner had no notice under section 138 of the said Act. Therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said amount. 4. The learned 11th Metropolitan Magistrate after careful scrutiny of the facts and other documents on record was, however, inclined to record an order of conviction under section 138 of the said Act and directed the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 15,00,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one year and also directed that out of the said amount Rs. 12,00,000/ - shall be paid to the complainant/opposite party towards compensation. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the present petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Chief Judge. City Civil & Sessions Court, Calcutta being Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1994. The appellate court also dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta. Therefore, being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Court below the accused/petitioner has filed this revision. 5. Mr. Mitra, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has challenged the order of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below. It has been contended that since the partnership firm was a party in this case and there was no valid notice served upon the petitioner therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against him is contrary to law and it is unsustainable. It has been further contended that the complainant was examined as the sole witness who has stated that the petitioner himself has not received any notice but it was served upon one of his assistants in the office. Since there was invalid service of notice, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Mr. Mitra has further submitted that the learned, Court below failed to appreciate that during the trial the complainant failed to adduce any witness to prove the exhibits 3 and 4. 6. Mr. Since there was invalid service of notice, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Mr. Mitra has further submitted that the learned, Court below failed to appreciate that during the trial the complainant failed to adduce any witness to prove the exhibits 3 and 4. 6. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the opposite party No. 1 has brought to my notice that there was no challenge by the petitioner before the trial court that there was no valid notice served against the accused. Therefore, it would be futile to contend at the revisional stage for want of proper service of notice under section 138 of the said Act. It has been further submitted that the notice has been proved in this case and once there has been no objection by the accused at the time of admission of those documents, the accused/petitioner cannot challenge the admissibility of those documents at the appellate stage. 7. Mr. Ghosal, learned advocate appearing for the State has submitted that in this case, the prosecution has properly proved the notice upon the accused, so also the documents exhibits 3 and 4. He has relied upon the provision of section 4 of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891. Before discussing the question of admissibility of exhibits 3 & 4, let me advert to those documents and discuss the purport of those exhibits. In exhibit 3 it is found that a letter issued by the Bank of America on 7-2-92, whereby it has endorsed that the drawer has insufficient funds. In column No. 19 of the said exhibit it is found (l9a) Insufficient funds (l9b) Account closed. In serial No. 20 it is stated that payment stopped by the drawer (20a) Cheque number different (20b) Cheque crossed to two Banks (20c) please present this cheque of the counter for encashment. (20d) stamp required to be cancelled under authenticated initials. In exhibit 4 it is written that the cheque was returned to the drawee for insufficient funds as being dishonoured. From the exhibits 3 and 4 it seems that the banker has refused to honour the cheque on account of insufficient funds. At the time of proving those documents, neither the petitioner nor his learned advocate raised any objection in the trial court. From the exhibits 3 and 4 it seems that the banker has refused to honour the cheque on account of insufficient funds. At the time of proving those documents, neither the petitioner nor his learned advocate raised any objection in the trial court. It also appears from the record that no separate application was filed before the trial Judge that those documents should not be exhibited for want of proof. Once those documents have been proved-in the trial court without any objection, it would not be appropriate for the accused/petitioner to take a stand in the appellate court that those documents ought not to have been admitted in evidence without proper proof. Apart from this, the provision of section 4 of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891 provides that "4. Mode of proof of entries in Bankers books.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, a certified copy of any entry in a bankers book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of the existence of such entry, and shall be admitted as evidence of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded in every case where, and to the same extent as, the original entry itself is now by law admissible but not further or otherwise". Therefore, in view of the above provisions, the admissibility of those documents cannot be questioned by the accused in this revisional application. 8. In this case, the issuance of cheque by the petitioner is not challenged. As per the provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it raises a presumption about the liability of the petitioner. Apart from it, from exhibits 3 and 4 it is apparent that the cheque was dishonoured and bounced on account of insufficient funds. Thus, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- for which the cheque was bounced. 9. The, next and important question in this case arises is whether the petitioner is entitled to separate notice apart from the notice served upon the firm. In the complaint the firm as well as its Managing Director were arraigned as accused. In this connection, A/D card has been proved which shows that it was sent to D.K. International, 2B Grant Lane. 4th floor. Cabin No. 80 Calcutta. The letter was received by someone in the office on behalf of D.K. International. In the complaint the firm as well as its Managing Director were arraigned as accused. In this connection, A/D card has been proved which shows that it was sent to D.K. International, 2B Grant Lane. 4th floor. Cabin No. 80 Calcutta. The letter was received by someone in the office on behalf of D.K. International. Therefore, it was served upon the partnership firm through one the staff working therein on 2-3-1992. On careful consideration of the evidence of P.W. 1. no question has been asked by the accused that it was not served upon the firm as well as from the A/D card it appears that it was not personally served upon the accused D.K. Shah. Because of non-service can it be said to be fatal to the prosecution case. In this regard, Mr. Ghosal, learned advocate appearing for the State has relied upon a judgment reported in the case of Gitish Chandra Pandey v. Kanhaiyalal Chandak & Anr.1. An identical question was raised in the said case. A learned single Judge drawing the presumption under section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and also relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. T.K. Udaysankaran2 held that "the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly Addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post." In the, aforesaid situation. I therefore, following the aforesaid judgment hold that there was proper service of notice upon the accused D.K. Shah. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that there was no presumption in this case. But on the basis of the provision of the General Clauses Act and also on the judgment cited above. I have no other option, but to - hold that there was proper service upon Mr. D.K. Shah. Accordingly. I do not find any reason to upset the findings of the courts below. 10. In the result, the revisional application fails and the order of conviction and sentence is upheld. 11. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I direct that there be an interim order of stay of this order for a period of four weeks from date. 12. If urgent xerox certified copy is applied for the same shall be given within two weeks from the date of application. 11. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties. I direct that there be an interim order of stay of this order for a period of four weeks from date. 12. If urgent xerox certified copy is applied for the same shall be given within two weeks from the date of application. This order be communicated forthwith through a special messenger at the cost of the opposite party No. 1 Revision dismissed. 1. 1998 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter page 283. 2. 1995 (3) SCC 518.