( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1177 OF 2009 Manjaram s/o Sakharam Sondge APPLICANT VERSUS Ashok s/o Sadhu Choudhari RESPONDENT ..... Mr. S.S. Thombre, advocate for the applicant. Mr. Deokate, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Katneshwarkar, advocate for the respondent. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 4th August, 2009] PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Mr. Deokate, advocate, holding for Mr. Katneshwarkar, advocate, seeks adjournment. The request is rejected. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant, it is quite clear that acquittal is rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate only because there was no appropriate proof regarding service of demand notice on the respondent/accused. It appears that the issuance of ( 2 ) cheque by the respondent and other relevant ingredients of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were established, but for want of proof regarding service of the demand notice, the learned Judicial Magistrate rendered the order of acquittal. It appears prima facie that the service of notice was attempted to be proved because envelope at Exh-18 was produced. The learned Magistrate held that because the envelope was torn on both the sides, it was difficult to accept the due service. Considering the technical defect stated by the learned Magistrate and because the endorsement on the envelope is not prima facie properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate, I deem it proper to accord leave to appeal. Hence, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal is granted. 4. Admit the appeal. The appellant to file private paper book within eight (8) weeks. Call for record and proceedings. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/CRIAPLN1177-09