: 1 : A-366-11=.doc USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.366 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.--OF 2010 Alimuddin Naruddin Shaikh .. Applicant v/s. Prashant Kalesha Iandi & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Kedar Patil for the applicant Mr. H.J. Dedia, APP for the State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2011. P.C. : 1. The respondent faced trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Miraj under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 in Sessions Case No. 551 of 2006. The learned Magistrate at the end of the trial acquitted respondent by order dated 9th July, 2009. Being aggrieved by order of acquittal the complainant has preferred an appeal and has filed application for leave to appeal. 2. I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. Apart from the other points, learned trial Judge has : 2 : A-366-11=.doc acquitted the respondent on the ground that the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 has not been served upon respondent. I have perused the record. Learned Counsel for the applicant on the basis of record could not produce any material as to why he addressed a notice on the address where respondent was not residing. The notice could not be served because respondent was not residing at the said place. This will mean that the requirements of provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are not fulfilled as statutory notice is not served upon the person who is said to have been committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 3. In view of the above, requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 are not fulfilled. Consequently, the respondent deserved to be acquitted. 4. Learned Judge has taken a correct view of the matter. No interference is required in the impugned judgment. Application is rejected. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)