HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.30 of 2005 Ranjeet Singh .……….. Appellant Versus Pratap Singh ..…….. Respondent Dated: August 19, 2009 Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned amicus curiae for the appellant None is present for the respondent Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This appeal, preferred by the appellant u/s 378(4) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital in Criminal Case No.2206/2001, Ranjeet Singh Vs. Pratap Singh, whereby the learned C.J.M. acquitted the respondent Pratap Singh u/s 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act). 2. None is present for the respondent though service is found to be sufficient upon him. I have heard Sri S.S. Chaudhary, learned amicus curiae on behalf of the appellant and perused the entire material available on file. 3. In brief, the prosecution case is that the respondent Pratap Singh issued a cheque dated 6.9.2001 of Rs.80,000/- in favour of the appellant Ranjeet Singh. When the appellant presented the said cheque in the bank the same was dishonored on the ground of account closed and the information regarding this dishonor was received to the appellant on 8.9.2001. Then on 20.09.2001, the appellant sent notice to the respondent through registered post but 2 the service was found insufficient upon the respondent. Thereafter on 8.10.2001, the appellant again sent notice to the respondent through UPC but he received no information regarding service. With these averments, the appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital on 23.11.2001. 4. After perusal of the record it reveals that the notice was not served on the respondent. As there is no evidence of service of notice upon the respondent, hence, the complainant has failed to prove that the complaint dated 23.11.2001 filed by him is within time (as provided u/s 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881). On the basis of evidence produced by the complainant in the trial court, learned amicus curiae could not point any mistake in the aforesaid judgment. I am also in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned C.J.M., Nainital. 5. In view of the above, the judgment and order dated 30.07.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital is correct and justified and no interference is required in the said judgment and order. I do not find any sufficient ground to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is refused. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. (Dharam Veer, J.) 19.08.2009 RG