This appeal by the complainant is directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Court of XVI Additional CMM, Bangalore in C.C. acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

2. The essential facts leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows.-

The complainant-appellant herein filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, before the XVI Additional CMM, Bangalore averring that the accused-respondent had taken a loan of Rs. 60,000/- i.e., Rs. 10,000/- at the first instance and subsequently Rs. 50,000/- during 1998 for the purpose of running Garment Factory near Sunkadakatte Main Road by promising that she would pay the said sum within 2 to 3 months. When the complainant demanded repayment of the said sum, the respondent issued two cheques for Rs. 10,000/- in the first instance and Rs. 50,000/- during October 1998. The accused had requested to postpone the presentation of the cheque. The complainant waited and presented the cheque during the first week of 1998 i.e., on 9-12-1998 through SB Account in Syndicate Bank, Sirsi Road Branch, Bangalore and the same was returned with Bank shara 'insufficient funds' on 10-12-1998. The said fact was informed to the accused by issuing a legal notice dated 18-12-1998. The notice was sent through RPAD and Certificate of Posting. Even though the accused received the notice through certificate of posting and inspite of the intimation by the postal authorities, she did not collect the registered post, which has been returned with shara "Intimation delivered and not collected". The accused has neither complied with the legal notice nor has paid the amount of the cheque and wherefore, the complaint.

3. The learned Additional CMM recorded the sworn statement of the accused and issued summons to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the complainant, she was examined as P.W. 1 and got marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 4. On behalf of the accused, the accused was examined as D.W. 1 and got marked Exs. D. 1 to D. 3. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. The defence of the accused was one of denial. The Trial Court after considering the contention of the parties and the material on record held that the complainant has not proved service of notice of dishonour on the respondent and complaint is not got marked and wherefore the complainant has failed to prove that the respondent has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly acquitted the respondent of having committed the said offence by its judgment dated 3-12-2001. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the complainant has presented this appeal.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that both the grounds on which the Trial Court has proceeded to acquit the accused are erroneous. Learned Counsel further submitted that when the notice was sent to the correct address of the respondent and it was not claimed by the respondent and the notice was also sent through certificate of posting, the notice should have been deemed to have been served on the respondent in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Bhaskaran v Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and Another1. Further, since the complaint is not got marked, in view of the decision of this Court in G. Premdas v Venkataram2, the accused is entitled to be acquitted as the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not proved. Learned Counsel has relied upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in V. Satyanarayana v M/s. Sandeep Enterprises, Bangalore3, wherein it has been held that the complaint need not be got marked as a document as it forms part of the record and non-marking is not fatal to the complainant's case. The learned Counsel has