JUDGMENT The appellant-complainant prosecuted the respondent-accused for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The fact of issuance of cheque, Ex. P. 1 and its dishonour is validly proved by the complainant. A copy of the registered notice issued to the accused is marked at Ex. P. 3. Ex. P. 4 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex. P. 5 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 of the Negotiable Instruments 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 member 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 and Another1, has observed in Para 14 that: "14. 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 dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service. Any other interpretation can lead to a very tenuous position as the drawer of the cheque who is liable to pay the amount would resort to the strategy of subterfuge by successfully avoiding the notice. 3. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that once there is proof of posting of notice to correct address, it is deemed to have been served. In the instant case, the facts stand on a better footing. A family member of the accused has received the notice. The accused has not lead in any contra evidence to prove that he has not received any notice through his family member. In that view, the judgment of acquittal is bad in law. 4. Appeal is allowed. The accused is convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. In that view, the judgment of acquittal is bad in law. 4. Appeal is allowed. The accused is convicted for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused is imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Out of the fine amount, Rs. 95,000/- shall be payable to the complainant. The balance to be appropriated by the State towards prosecution expenses.