Judgment Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of respondent no. 2 from the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the present appeal is preferred by the original complainant. 3. The case of the appellant in brief is as under: That, the present respondent no. 2 used to purchase banana from the appellant. Towards credit of purchase of banana, respondent no.2 had issued him a cheque of Rs.70,000/-drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad Branch, Pedapalli. The complainant presented the cheque in the bank for encashment, however, vide memo dated 11.08.1998 the bank intimated the complainant about dishonour of the cheque for the reason that there was no"sufficient amount" in the account of respondent no. 2. In the circumstances, the appellant-complainant issued a notice to respondent no.2 on 13.08.1998 by RPAD. The said notice was, however, returned by the postal authority. Thereupon, the complainant personally met respondent no. 2 accused on 22.08.1998 and requested him to pay an amount, but of no avail. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nanded, acquitted the present respondent no.2 mainly on the ground that there was no service of statutory notice upon respondent no. 2. Thus, according to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, ingredient no. 4 has not been proved by the complainant-appellant and respondent no.2 deserves to be acquitted. 5. Mr. R.R. Mantri, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate ought to have seen that the notice by registered post duly prepared and properly addressed was sent to the respondent no.2 by registered post A.D. and the law presumes due service in such case. It is, however, to be noted that very envelop at Exhibit 25 placed by the complainant-appellant shows that the notice was returned to the complainant, as address was incomplete. Therefore, there is no question of drawing presumption of service of notice could arise merely because the complainant had sent notice by R.P.A.D. 6. The provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are as under: "138. Therefore, there is no question of drawing presumption of service of notice could arise merely because the complainant had sent notice by R.P.A.D. 6. The provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are as under: "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency etc, of funds in the account:Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless: (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (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." 7. It is trite to state that all ingredients of the offence will have to be complied and proved by the complainant. In the present case, service of notice is not effected, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the present respondent no.2. 8. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. It is trite to state that all ingredients of the offence will have to be complied and proved by the complainant. In the present case, service of notice is not effected, therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly acquitted the present respondent no.2. 8. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.