( 1 ) THIS petition is directed under section 378 (4) of Cr. P. C. for seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 25-8-2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, first Class Jabalpur in Complaint case No. 2494/02 acquitting the respondent from the charge punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short "the Act" ). ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent had borrowed sum of Rs. 40. 000/- from the applicant in the month of January 2000 and in consideration of it, the cheque No. 652581 dated 6/7/2000 and No. 652582 dated 12/7/2000 each one for Rs. 20,000/- were given to the applicant. On 28-9-2000 the aforesaid cheques were presented by the applicant to his banker the bank of Maharashtra for collection, but the same were returned to him as dishonoured on account of insufficiency of fund as mentioned in the memo of the Bank. Again these cheques were presented for collection on 3-12-2000, but again on account of insufficiency of fund the same were dishonored and returned to the applicant with the memo of the Bank. Thereafter as alleged on 8-12-2000 a registered notice was sent to the respondent on behalf of the applicant. The same was returned unserved on 20-12-2000. It was also said that on 8-12-2000 there was strike of postal officials. Hence, notice was sent through Courier on 8-12-2000 but it was returned on aforesaid date with note that addressee is not available at the mentioned address in spite of the intimation. Thereafter, the appellant personally gone to Bhopal and tried to serve the notice on respondents on 22/12/2000, but he refused to take the same then respondent was orally informed for payment of consideration of aforesaid cheques within 15 days, otherwise legal action would be followed. Instead the information no effort was made for payment of aforesaid cheques by the respondent. Subsequent to it, this complaint was filed. After recording the plea trial was held. During trial the applicant has examined himself as (P. W. 1) and his father Shri R. C. Dubey (P. W. 2 ). On appreciation of it the transaction in between the parties was found genuine but on account of non-compliance of procedure of Section 138 of the Act as sending and service of notice on respondent was not found as proved in accordance with law, the respondent was acquitted. On appreciation of it the transaction in between the parties was found genuine but on account of non-compliance of procedure of Section 138 of the Act as sending and service of notice on respondent was not found as proved in accordance with law, the respondent was acquitted. Hence, this petition is preferred for special leave to appeal. ( 3 ) SHRI Rajesh Mahendiratt, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that after receiving the information about dishonouring the cheques on 3-12-2000, there was strike of postal officials hence, notice could not be sent through registered post but the same was sent on 15-12-2000 through Reliance courier service (Ex. P. 8), within 15 days from the date of receipt of said information from the Bank. Such envelope of notice was returned unserved with the note that the addressee was not available at the time of service, his house was found locked in between morning to evening. It was also said that the bona fide of the applicant is apparent because he sent a notice through registered post soon after call of the strike of postal officials on 21-12-2000, although it was beyond 15 days but such envelope was also returned unserved with note that addressee is not available in spite of Information. The receipt of the courier was proved by the applicant. As per provision of section 138 of the Act only sending the notice is basic requirement and the same was complied with in the instant case. As per his submission notice through courier is also legal as laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court also. In support of this contention he cited the following decisions : (1) AIR 1999 SC 1609 : (1999 Cri LJ 2276) (M/s. SIL Import, USA v. M/s. Exim Aides silk Exporters), (2) 2000 (1) MPLJ 1 : (1999 Cri LJ 4606) (SC) (K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan balan ). (3) 2002 Cri LJ 4176 (Devendra Kumar v. Lalit Porwal ). In support of this contention he cited the following decisions : (1) AIR 1999 SC 1609 : (1999 Cri LJ 2276) (M/s. SIL Import, USA v. M/s. Exim Aides silk Exporters), (2) 2000 (1) MPLJ 1 : (1999 Cri LJ 4606) (SC) (K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan balan ). (3) 2002 Cri LJ 4176 (Devendra Kumar v. Lalit Porwal ). (4) 2005 (1) MPLJ 54 Janak Gandhi v. State of M. P. ( 4 ) IN view of principles laid down in the aforesaid cases the trial Court was bound to draw an inference that notice was served on the respondent within the limitation prescribed under Section 138 of the Act but on wrong appreciation of the evidence and without considering the spirit of law by holding that,the service of notice is not prpved and on account of that respondent was wrongly acquitted. Thus, there is sufficient circumstance for granting special leave to appeal and prayed for the same. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel, before proceeding to consider the factual matrix of the case for granting special leave to appeal i have gone through the aforesaid cited cases. In some cases time for giving notice have been extended, in some cases service through courier had been held as legal while in some cases the provisions of presumption regarding service of notice or about the postal receipt and postal certificate has been laid down. This Court has no dispute about the principles laid down in these cases but in the peculiar and apparent facts and circumstances of the instant case the aforesaid cited cases are not helping to the applicant. ( 6 ) COMING to the factual matrix of this matter, in the impugned judgment it has been held that the cheques were given by the respondents to the applicant and its consideration was remained outstanding. On depositing the cheques by the applicant with his Banker for collection, same were dishonored lastly on 3-12-2000. The then there was a provision of Section 138 (b) of the Act for issuing demand notice within 15 days from the date of receiving the information of dishonoring the cheque. In the case at hand as alleged the intimation was given on 8/12/2000 on which I have not found any documentary or other evidence except the deposition of the complainant that such notice was given or sent on 8/12/2000. In the case at hand as alleged the intimation was given on 8/12/2000 on which I have not found any documentary or other evidence except the deposition of the complainant that such notice was given or sent on 8/12/2000. Hence, in the lack of admissible evidence, it cannot be assumed that notice was given on such date. The applicant has tried to prove that notice under Section 138 (b) of the Act was sent on 15-12-2000 by Reliance courier and such notice was returned un-served on 20-12-2000, such receipt of the courier for sending the notice was exhibited as Ex. P. 8 while envelope Ex. P. 7. On perusing the receipt Ex. P. 8 it does not speak actual date of sending the notice, only 15. 12 has been mentioned in it, even the seal of concerning office has not been affixed on it, in order to prove the same any official of such courier service was not examined, and in the lack of it, it cannot be connected for any purpose as it was not proved by reliable evidence. Besides this on perusing the said unserved envelope Ex. P. 7, it is apparent that such envelope is also not having any seal of such courier regarding its booking or for sending, even the number of Ex. P. 8 was not mentioned in it. Thus, this envelope could not be connected with Ex. P. 8 in the absence of any seal of courier or number or receipt or endorsement of date for sending the envelope and without examining such person who went to serve the same and put his endorsement regarding non availability of addressee mere on the testimony of the applicant it could not be relied. If such notice is excluded for consideration then it is apparent that no notice was given to the respondents within fifteen days from the receipt of dishonouring the cheques in compliance of Section 138 of the Act. If such notice was not given then it is a material lacuna of the instant case and in the absence of notice no complaint could be entertained by the trial Court. Although it was said by the counsel for the applicant that ex. P. 7 and Ex. If such notice was not given then it is a material lacuna of the instant case and in the absence of notice no complaint could be entertained by the trial Court. Although it was said by the counsel for the applicant that ex. P. 7 and Ex. P. 8 receipt of courier were not challenged by the respondents even in the cross-examination of the applicant and it was a sufficient circumstance to draw inference against the respondent but his submission is not appealed me because the applicant was bound to prove the compliance of Section 138 (b) of the Act by proving the aforesaid courier receipt through the person of that courier service then his argument would be considered. In the absence of reliable and documentary evidence the submission made by the applicant in this regard is failed. ( 7 ) SO far notice sent through registered post on 21/12/2000 and his postal receipt are concerned, it is suffice to say that same was given beyond 15 days, the then there was no provision in the Act for extending the time and same could not be considered for any purpose. Besides this the applicant has not proved by cogent and reliable evidence that postal official were remained on strike from 3/12/2000 to 18/12/2000. Hence, in the absence of evidence regarding this, his version could not be relied. My aforesaid views are fully fortified by the decision of this Court in the matter of Prem chand Vijay Kumar v. Yash Pal Singh, reported in 2005 (4) MPLJ 5 in which it was held as under :"13. One of the indispensable factors to form the cause of action envisaged in section 138 of the Act is contained in clause (b)of the proviso to that section. It involves the making of a demand by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque 'within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid'. If no such notice is given within the said period of 15 days, no cause of action could have been created at all. 14. Thus, it is well settled'that if dishonour of a cheque has once snowballed into a cause of action it is not permissible for a payee to create another cause of action with same cheque. If no such notice is given within the said period of 15 days, no cause of action could have been created at all. 14. Thus, it is well settled'that if dishonour of a cheque has once snowballed into a cause of action it is not permissible for a payee to create another cause of action with same cheque. " ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has not committed any error in holding that service of demand notice was not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act as exists on that day. Hence, I do not find any ground to grant special leave to appeal. Resultantly, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing. Petition dismissed. .