JUDGMENT Hon’ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.—The facts of the aforementioned three cases are similar and they are accordingly being disposed off by this common order. The petition No. 2079 of 2007 will be the leading case. 2. The respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicants and the learned Special C.J.M. Kanpur Nagar has issued the summons. 3. The applicants say that the complaint is time barred because it has not been filed within 30 days after the expiry of 15 days from the receipt of the notice as contemplated by Sections 138 (c) of and 142 (b). The two provisions may be extracted for ready reference : “138 (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” “142 (b) such complaint is made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under clause (c) the proviso to Section 138.” 4. The first notice which was given by the respondent No. 2 under Section 138 (c) was by registered post and it has been mentioned in the complaint that the postman went to deliver the registered notice at the given address but the applicants deliberately avoided service as per the endorsement in the postal article by the postman and left a massage at both place business and residence to collect the registered notice which the applicants did not and then six or seven days thereafter, the notice was returned back to the respondent No. 2 as not claimed. 5. The respondent has further mentioned in the complaint that the complainant informed the applicants on telephone about the same. It was further mentioned in the complaint that thereafter, the complainant personally served a copy of the registered notice to the applicants. 6. According to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 J.I.C. 1069 (S.C.) that time will be calculated from the date of the first notice, the question will naturally arise as to when the first notice will be deemed to have been given whether the one given by registered post, or the one served by him personally. It is a matter of evidence whether the postman went to deliver the registered notice, and whether, he left information that the notice be collected, for which, the postman will need to be examined or other evidence about the same will have to be led. Similarly, evidence will be required for ascertaining the version of the complainant that he delivered the notice personally to the applicants. 7. The matter cannot be decided in these proceedings because evidence will be required, and it will be for the Magistrate to decide the same, after recording evidence. 8. In the circumstances, the petitions cannot be decided only on the basis of averments contained therein and, without evidence and the petitions have, therefore, to be dismissed. 9. Petitions dismissed. 10. A copy of this order be kept on the file of Criminal Misc. Application Nos. 2080 of 2007 and 2081 of 2007 also. ————