1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3629 OF 2010 The Raver Merchants Co-operative Credit Society ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Manoj S/o Onkarsingh Pardeshi ..RESPONDENT ......... Mr. R.S. Pawar, Advocate for the applicant. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 27 th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Acquittal of the respondent in S.C.C. No. 535 of 2006 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is founded on technical flow. It is not disputed that the notice of demand was issued on the address of the respondent but that was received by one Laxmi Pardeshi. The trial Court held that the appellant (complainant) did not adduce any evidence to show that said Laxmi is the wife of the respondent and that she had authority to accept the notice. The trial Court also referred to judgment in “M.D. Thomos V/s P. S. Jalil” (2009 All S.C.R. 2768). The Apex Court held as below : 2 “ In the present case, the notice of demand was served upon the wife of the appellant and not the appellant. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that complainant respondent had not complied with the requirement of giving notice in terms of Clause (b) of proviso to Section 138 of the Act. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked this important lacuna in the complainant’s case. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant can not be sustained.” 2. Considering the above referred dictum of the Apex Court, there is hardly any scope for entertaining appeal because service of the demand notice is not duly established and can not be treated as valid one. Hence, the impugned judgment need not be interfered with. Leave refused. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/cri3629.10