IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) No.5 of 2005 Amrik Singh .……… Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .……… Respondents Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for respondent/State. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Heard Mr. Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. G.A. for respondent No.1/State and perused the record. The complainant/appellant filed a criminal complaint case against the accused/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on 11.09.1996 alleging therein that the accused/respondents Nos. 2 & 3 gave him cheque on 23/07/1996. When he produced the cheque before the Bank on 25/07/1996, it was dishonoured on the same day. Thereafter, notice as contemplated u/s 138 of N.I. Act was given to the accused/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 on 06/08/1996 and thereafter a complaint was filed before the court. After trial the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused/respondent Nos.2 & 3. Hence, this petition for seeking leave to appeal has been filed. The main controversy arises as to whether the notice as contemplated u/s 138 of the N.I. Act had been served upon the private respondents or not. Learned counsel for the appellant could not demonstrate me by any iota of evidence that it was ever received by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. It has not been proved by any cogent evidence that the said notice was ever received by the respondent no.2. In absence of such evidence, the offence u/s 138 N.I.Act is not made out. The learned trial court has also held that the prosecution has 2 miserably failed to prove the receipt of the notice on respondent Nos. 2 & 3. The accused/respondents had categorically denied the receipt of the notice in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Dishonour of cheque by itself does not give rise to a cause of action to file the complaint. Failure to pay the amount within fifteen days of receipt of notice alone is the cause of action and nothing else. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial court. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in this case. The leave petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal also stands dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 28.08.2008 Shiv 3