C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 526 of 2000 is filed by the accused in CC No. 447 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the judicial Magistrate of First Class, miryalaguda to quash the said proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (the Act) on the ground that notice of dishonour was i not served on him. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 215 of 2002 is filed by the accused in CC No. 297 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the v Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada to quash the said proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Act on the ground that notice of dishonour was not served on him. ( 3 ) SINCE the point for decision in both the above petitions in the same they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 4 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that a reading of Section 142 with Clause (b) of Proviso to section 138 of the Act clearly establishes that cause of action for filing of a complaint arises only after service of the notice of dishonour of the cheque on the drawer of the cheque, and so it is clear that offence under Section 138 of the Act can be said to be committed only if payment is not made within 15 days of receipt of notice of dishonour and therefore proof of receipt of notice of dishonour on the drawer of the cheque is the sine qua non for initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the act, and since in both the cases notices of dishonour were admittedly not served on the petitioners, petitioners cannot be said to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act and hence the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed. Strong reliance is placed on v. Satyanarayana v. A. P. Travel and Tourism department Corporation Limited, 1997 (1) ald (Crl.) 706 (A. P), B. Adhikari v. Ponraj, 1996 Crl. LJ 180, and Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms, (1999) 8 SCC 221 , by the leaned Counsel for petitioners in support of their above contention. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on MJs. Aparna Agencies v. P. Sudhakar Rao, 2000 Crl. LJ 180, and Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farms, (1999) 8 SCC 221 , by the leaned Counsel for petitioners in support of their above contention. ( 5 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on MJs. Aparna Agencies v. P. Sudhakar Rao, 2000 Crl. LJ 1005, and indian Bank v. Datla Venkata China krishnam Raju, AIR 1991 SC 908 , contended that when notice is sent by registered post to correct address it should be deemed to have been served on the addresses and so the question whether notices of dishonour were served or not on the petitioners has to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced during the course of trial, and so there are no grounds to quash the proceedings. ( 6 ) IN Aparna Agencies case (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court while considering the question of service of notice of dishonour under Section 138 of the Act, referring to Indian Bank case (supra) held that if notice is sent to a proper address, even if it is returned on the ground that the accused was not found at the said address, it should be deemed to have been served on the addresse. The learned Judge referred to V. Satyanarayana case (supra) and held that since the attention of the learned Judge seems to have not been drawn to the decision of Indian Bank (supra), it is distinguishable. ( 7 ) IN B. Adhikari case (supra), a learned single Judge of the Madras High court held that when notice of dishonour is not served on the drawer, his conviction under Section 138 of the Act is unsustainable. In Central Bank of India case (supra), it is held that the object of making a provision for issuance of notice of dishonour to the drawer of the cheque in Section 138 of the act is to give him an opportunity to rectify his omission, and also to protect an honest drawer, service of notice of dishonour as contemplated by clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 of the Act, is a condition precedent for filing of a complaint under section 138 of the Act. In that case, supreme Court set aside the order of the high Court quashing the proceedings under section 138 of the Act and directed trial of the case. In that case, supreme Court set aside the order of the high Court quashing the proceedings under section 138 of the Act and directed trial of the case. ( 8 ) IN CC No. 447 of 1999, the complainant made a specific averment in the complaint that after the cheque was dishonoured he met the drawer personally and informed him about the return of the cheque and requested him to arrange payment, and as he did not give a proper reply he got issued a legal notice, which he intentionally avoided to receive in collusion with the postman and got it returned with the endorsement "addresse out of station". ( 9 ) IN CC No. 297 of 1999, the complainant specifically averred that after the cheque was dishonoured he sent a notice to the drawer of the cheque under certificate of posting and also by registered post demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque and that the drawer, after having received the notice sent under certificate of posting, managed to return the notice sent by registered post, with false endorsement continuously 7 days absent . ( 10 ) FROM the averments in the complaints, extracted above it is seen that the specific case of the complainants in both the cases is that the drawers of the cheques, i. e. , petitioners in these petitions, being fully aware of their (complainants) sending a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Act, deliberately managed to get false endorsements on the registered notices that they are absent at the addresses to which the notices are sent. ( 11 ) AS rightly contended by the learned Counsel for petitioners, as per Section 142 of the Act, limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Act begins to run from the date of service of notice of dishonour. But, it is very significant to note that Section 138 of the Act does not mandate that notice of dishonour should be sent by registered post. In fact in central bank of India case (supra), the Supreme court held that there is no particular form of notice of dishonour. Therefore, the payee, or the holder in due course, can send the notice of dishonour, demanding payment, by ordinary post or under certificate of posting or by registered post. In fact in central bank of India case (supra), the Supreme court held that there is no particular form of notice of dishonour. Therefore, the payee, or the holder in due course, can send the notice of dishonour, demanding payment, by ordinary post or under certificate of posting or by registered post. Since, proof of sending of notice of dishonour and demand for payment, would not available to the payee or the holder in due course if notice is sent by ordinary post, in order to have proof of sending the statutory notice of demand after dishonour of the cheque, the same would be sent either by certificate of posting or registered post. ( 12 ) WHEN notice is sent by post of correct address either by registered post or otherwise, the presumption under Section 114 of EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 read with Section 27 of the general Clause Act, would be that it is received by the addressee. Since the said presumption is a rebutable presumption the addressee can establish that he did not receive the letter (notice) addressed to him. Since the complainant in CC No. 297 of 1999 sent the notice of dishonour and demand under certificate of positing, the presumption would be that it was served on the addressee. As stated earlier since service of registered notice is not mandatory it cannot be said that the condition precedent of service of notice of demand is not satisfied in CC no. 297 of 2002. For that reason only crl. P No. 215 of 2002 is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) THE averment in CC No. 447 of 1999 is that the accused intentionally avoided to receive the notice and got a false endorsement of his absence made on the notice by the postman. Had the notice of dishonour been sent by certificate of posting, even if the addressee was out of station, it would have been delivered in the house of the addressee, and the presumption of service would be available to the complainant. By reason of the complainant sending the notice of dishonour by registered post, instead of sending it by certificate of posting, he cannot be put to a disadvantage of being held that the notice was not served on the addressee merely because it was returned with an endorsement the addressee is absent. By reason of the complainant sending the notice of dishonour by registered post, instead of sending it by certificate of posting, he cannot be put to a disadvantage of being held that the notice was not served on the addressee merely because it was returned with an endorsement the addressee is absent. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that registered letters would kept in deposit for about a week for being delivered to the addressee, and only in case if he is not available for seven days would be registered letter be returned to the sender, with an endorsement that the addressee is absent. A cunning drawer of the cheque can always manage to avoid receipt of registered letter and can easily procure an endorsement on the registered letter that the addressee is continuously absent. When presumption of service of letter can be raised when it is sent by ordinary post or certificate of posting, why not the same be raised in case of letter sent by registered post. Any ordinary prudent person, who goes out of station for a considerable long time, or goes out of station frequently, would authorize somebody in his office or house to receive registered or insured letter sent to him. A person going out of station for seven days without taking care to make arrangement for receiving the mail addressed to him by registered post, etc. , in his name, should suffer the consequences for his lapse. Let me give an example. If a person who is expecting a money order goes out of station for about a week, will he not make some arrangement to receive the same. If he fails to do so he will suffer the consequence. In a similar fashion parties rights cannot be put to jeopardy nor can they be put to inconvenience, for the lapse of the addressee not making proper arrangements to receive registered, etc. , letters sent to him. He cannot make his laches and negligence a ground of defence in the proceedings initiated by his creditors, who diligently pursue the remedies open to them, and cannot, on that ground, seek dismissal of the complaint even at the threshold. The question as to whether the accused in CC no. , letters sent to him. He cannot make his laches and negligence a ground of defence in the proceedings initiated by his creditors, who diligently pursue the remedies open to them, and cannot, on that ground, seek dismissal of the complaint even at the threshold. The question as to whether the accused in CC no. 447 of 1999 was really out of station during the relevant period, when the notice by registered post was sent to his address and if he really went out, why he failed to make arrangements to receive letters, etc. , sent to him, or if he, being available, got a false endorsement of his absence made, are matters to be decided after parties adduce evidence. In the circumstances, prima facie, presumption of the petitioner in crl. P No. 526 of 2000 receiving the notice addressed to him can be drawn, even if he was really absent for about a week, because of his failure to make proper arrangements for receipt of registered etc. , letters or notices addressed to him. He can rebut the presumption by adducing evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. In view thereof, the proceedings in CC No. 447 of 1999 cannot be quashed on the ground that no cause of action accrued to the complainant to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, due to non-receipt of notice of demand after dishonour of cheque sent by the complainant. ( 14 ) IN the result, both the petitions are dismissed.