K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—The appellant/complainant prosecuted the respondent/accused for an offence under Section 138, N.I. Act. The fact of issuance of cheque Ex. P1 and its dishonour is validly proved by the complainant. A copy of the registered notice issued to the accused is marked at Ex. P3. Ex. P4 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex. P5 is the postal receipt. The complainant has examined himself. The accused has admitted issuance of cheque but disputes the issuance of notice as required under Section 138, N.I. Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused. The Sessions Judge in appeal acquitted the accused on the ground that the registered notice issued is received by the family members as per the acknowledgement. Therefore, there is no valid service of notice on the accused.

2. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu,1 has observed in Para l4

that:

“l4. No doubt Section 138 of the Act does not require that the notice should be given only by ‘post’. Nonetheless the principle incorporated in Section 27 (quoted above) can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then