T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the first respondent herein in CC No. 682 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatarigi in Nellore district. ( 2 ) THE first respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. The case of the complainant, inter alia, in the complaint was that the accused issued a post dated cheque bearing no. 263803 dated 30-7-2000 drawn on bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank limited in discharge of the debt owed by him for having purchased zari sarees worth rs. 69,180/- under a Bill No. 8/44 on credit basis; and that when the complainant presented the said cheque with Andhira Bank, chikkadapalli Branch on 27-9-2000 for collection, it was returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient"; and that on the request of the accused the complainant presented the cheque again with Andhra bank, Venkatagiri Branch on 31-10-2000 and even on the second time also it was returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient"; and that therefore, he issued a legal notice to the accused demanding him to pay the amount due but the said notice was returned to the complainant on 24-11-2000 as it was not claimed by the accused. ( 3 ) THE petitioner-accused is now seeking to quash those proceedings on the sole premise that it has not been specifically mentioned in the complaint about the receipt of the legal notice got issued by the complainant and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. ( 4 ) AT the stage of admission, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to place reliance upon a judgment of this Court in A. Suderxhan v. Mannen (Shabir) and another, 1997 (2) Crimes 707 . That was a case where the legal notice got issued on behalf of the complainant was returned with the postal endorsement "not found for 7 continuous day". A learned single Judge of this Court held that it was not a case of constructive notice and due to non-service of notice in terms of Section 138 (b) and (c) of Negotiable Instruments act, an offence under that Section is not constituted. A learned single Judge of this Court held that it was not a case of constructive notice and due to non-service of notice in terms of Section 138 (b) and (c) of Negotiable Instruments act, an offence under that Section is not constituted. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further seeks to place reliance upon a short judgment of the Apex court in M/s. Shakti Travel and Tours v. State of Bihar and another, 2000 (4) Crimes 150 (SC ). In that case, the Apex Court held as mentioned hereunder thus: undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, it is open to the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in paragraph 9, the complaint itself is not maintainable. ( 5 ) TURNING to the facts in the instant case, it has been specially mentioned in para 3 of the complaint that on 7-11-2000 when the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque, the abovesaid cheque (sic notice ) was unclaimed by the accused though he was running business in the same address and it was returned to the complainant on 24-11-2000. Again in para 4 while mentioning as to how the cause of action has arisen, it was averred that the complainant got issued a legal notice on 7-11-2000 demanding him to repay the debt due to him and the said notice was unclaimed by the accused though he was running business in the same address as stated in the complaint. Annexing the necessary documents the complaint was filed before the Court and they include the legal notice, postal receipt and the returned unclaimed registered post cover. Obviously therefore, it was not a case of non-service of notice, nor it was a case where there had been no mentioned about the issuance of the legal notice. On the other hand, it was a specific case of the complainant that the notice was unclaimed by the accused when it was sent to the address whereat he had been doing business. On the other hand, it was a specific case of the complainant that the notice was unclaimed by the accused when it was sent to the address whereat he had been doing business. It is obvious from the above factual matrix that the complainant claims it as a constructive notice. Under such circumstances, could it be said that the complaint was not maintainable, is the moot question. ( 6 ) IN Central Bank of India v. M/s. Saxons Farms, AIR 1999 SC 3607 , the apex Court held that the object of the notice is to give a chance to the drawer of the cheque to rectify his omission. In Sridhar v. Metalloy N. Steel Corporation, (2000) 1 scc 397, the Apex Court held that although in an appropriate case deemed service is to be accepted by Court but such presumption of deemed service is not a matter of course in all cases and deemed service is to be accepted in the facts of each case. However, in view of the facts peculiar to that case, the Apex Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt as to whether such service in fact had been effected on the appellant therein. The apex Court referred to its earlier judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hirala, (1996) 7 SCC 523 . In Hirala s case it was held thus:"in view of the office report, it would be clear that the respondent obviously managed to have the notice returned with postal remarks "not available in the house", "house locked" and "shop closed" respectively. In that view, it must be deemed that the notices have been served on the respondents. "of course, it is a presumption of fact and is always rebuttable. Such a presumption can be drawn when the facts warrant under the provisions of Section 27 of the General clauses Act and under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act. It is open to the adversary to prove before the court that in fact there has been no service of notice at all. Such a presumption can be drawn when the facts warrant under the provisions of Section 27 of the General clauses Act and under Section 114 illustration (f) of the Evidence Act. It is open to the adversary to prove before the court that in fact there has been no service of notice at all. ( 7 ) IN SIL Import, USA v. Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore, (1999) 4 SCC 567 , the Apex Court held that the sending of notice by fax is permissible although the language employed in Section 138 proviso (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to the effect that the demand shall be made for the payment of the amount by giving a notice in writing. The Apex Court was of the view that the legislature must be presumed to have been aware of the modern devices and equipment already in vogue and also in store for future. By giving such interpretation it was held that if the notice was transmitted by fax it would be in compliance with the legal requirements. Very recently in Ranjeesh Aggarwal v. Amit j. Bhalla, 2001 AIR SCW 124, the Apex court held that the object of issuing notice indicating the factum of dishonour of cheque is to give an opportunity to the drawer to make payment within 15 days, so that it will not be necessary for the payee to proceed against in any criminal action, even though the bank dishonoured the cheques. The apex Court was of the view that having regard to the object of issuance of such notice, the notices cannot be construed in a narrow technical way without examining the substance of the matter. That was a case where the cheque was issued by the company through its Director but the requisite legal notice was issued to the Director in his name, it was held that it was a sufficient compliance of the requirement. ( 8 ) A concatenation of the above case law would reveal that the process of interpretation should be to secure the ends of justice. Advancement of technology should also be considered in the process of interpretation. No narrow or parochialistic view shall be taken. A presumption of deemed service is permissible to be drawn when the facts of a particular case so warrant. Advancement of technology should also be considered in the process of interpretation. No narrow or parochialistic view shall be taken. A presumption of deemed service is permissible to be drawn when the facts of a particular case so warrant. ( 9 ) THE idea sought to be conveyed, as can be seen from the specific averments in the body of the complaint as well as the cause of action part is that the notice was sent to the addressee whereat the accused- petitioner was carrying on his business and that it was so managed to return without claiming the same. Of course, the factual statement that the notice was returned unclamed can be disputed by the accused in which event it becomes a contentious issue to be decided by the Court with reference to the evidence adduced on either side. Suffice at this stage to go by the averments made in the complaint without deciding the same in any manner when the notice was returned with the endorsement unclaimed and it was the case of the complainant that it was so managed by the accused. At this stage, those facts stated in the complaint are sufficient to draw the necessary presumption of deemed service. At any rate, it cannot be a case, in my considered view, where there has been no mention whatsoever in the complaint about the service of notice. By no stretch of the imagination it can be said that in all cases where there was no service, the complaint should fail. Allowance can be given to cases where the facts warrant a presumption of deemed service is to be drawn as otherwise in all cases where the unscrupulous accused managed to see the notices are returned, the complaint would invariably fail if the strict view is taken that there has been no service. ( 10 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I see no reason to quash the proceedings. In the result, the criminal petition fails and is dismissed at the threshold.