1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. APPLN. NO.2553/2008 The Liquidator Raigad co-operative Agro Industrial transportation Society Ltd. Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Ms.Deepa Ahuja for the applicant Mr.P.G.Chavan for Res.no.2 Mr.Y.S.Shinde,APP for State CORAM:Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J. DATE :22nd July,2009. P.C. . Heard . 2] The present application is made being aggrieved and dis- satisfied by the judgment and order dated 19/4/2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,F.C.Bhor dismissing the complaint filed by the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque. The applicant-Liquidator was engaged as the company went in liquidation . Respondent no.2 entered into contract with the applicant for the purpose of cutting sugarcanes and in turn the applicant had made advance of Rs.5,40,959/-.It was contended by the petitioner that the respondent was irregular and dishonest in his work and was unable to complete the work. After 2 adjusting the amount against the work done, he was liable for refunding the amount of Rs.2,93,209/- to the applicant. The cheque issued by the respondent for the said amount was dishonoured. Hence the applicant filed complaint against the respondent and the said complaint was rejected by the learned J.M.F.C.,Bhor vide judgment and order dated 19.4.2008. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order this revision application is filed. 3] The claim of the Petitioner Bank is of Rs.2,93,209/- as the cheque of the said amount was dishonoured. It is admitted position that a blank cheque ,Exh.27, with the signature was handed over to the petitioner by the accused. Though the signature is admitted by the accused the contents in the blank cheque are denied and all the details including the date 20.9.1998 were filled in by the petitioner and not the accused. The learned trial Judge has discussed this aspect and has rightly held that it cannot be said that the accused has given this cheque towards repayment of the due amount. Moreover, to prove the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act it is necessary for the complainant to establish proper service of the statutory notice on the accused within stipulated period. The learned trial Judge has analysed and properly weighed the evidence of service . The alterations in the 3 endorsement of the postal acknowledgment were found .The notice was returned back as the accused was out of station . However, it was suggested that the accused has refused to accept the notice. Hence it is not a good service or deemed service. In the guarantee bond which was executed by the guarantor against the repayment no specific amount which was due was filled in and it was left blank. The offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a technical one and it demands the strict proof of the ingredients. Hence the view taken by the learned J.M.F.C.is not found legal. No interference is required. Leave to appeal is rejected. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.)