ORDER : Bankim N. Mehta, J. By filing this application under section 378 (4) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973, the applicant original complainant has prayed for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 2, Ahmedabad dated 6th March 2007 in criminal case No. 833 of 1999. 2. The opponent No. 1 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court after recording of the evidence and hearing, the learned advocates for the parties, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence charged against the opponent No. 1 and therefore acquitted him for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved by the said decision the original complainant has preferred this application under section 378 subsection (4) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for leave to appeal. 3. I have heard learned advocate Ms Parikh for applicant at length and in great detail. 4. Complainant Messrs Prabhudas Mohanlal Bhimani a partnership firm was running business of Provision and Chemical and had supplied chemical goods to the opponent No. 1. It is alleged that the opponent No. 1 gave a cheque of Rs. 1,09,295/- to the complainant for the goods purchased. The cheque was presented to the bank but the same was dishonoured with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement". Therefore a notice of demand was sent to the opponent No. 1 by registered post A.D and under postal certificate demanding the payment of the cheque amount. The registered envelope contending the notice was returned with the endorsement "refused" but the notice sent under postal certificate has reached opponent No. 1 but the opponent No. 1 did not make the payment and committed the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore complaint was filed. 5. A partner of complainant Champaklal Prabhudas lodged the complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate Magistrate Court No. 1, Ahmedabad. The Court after recording the statement of the partner of the complainant issued process. The accused appeared in the case and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him, and therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. The prosecution examined only one witness Kiritbhai Champaklal Bhimani at Exh. 5. The Court after recording the statement of the partner of the complainant issued process. The accused appeared in the case and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him, and therefore, the prosecution adduced evidence. The prosecution examined only one witness Kiritbhai Champaklal Bhimani at Exh. 5. As the complainant did not examine other witness, by order dated 27th December 2006 below Exh. 1 the Court closed the evidence of complainant and adjourned the matter for recording of further statement of the accused. The further statement of the accused was recorded on 11th January 2007 and arguments of learned advocate for the parties were heard on 19th February 2007 and the impugned judgment was delivered on 6th March 2007. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decision the applicant has preferred this leave to appeal application. 7. It appears from the impugned judgment that the complainant examined the manager of the complainant but did not produce any evidence to indicate that he was authorised by the complainant firm to represent the firm and remain present in the Court. The judgment also indicates that the cheque allegedly given by the opponent No. 1 though produced on the record of the case was not duly proved and admitted in evidence by exhibiting it. The impugned judgment also indicates that the complainant did not produce cheque return memo indicating that the cheques issued by opponent No.1 against its liability were dishonoured on account of "exceeds arrangement". The prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that the cheques were issued for payment of any amount of money out of the account maintained by it for the discharge of any debt and that amount of money to honour the cheques or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. It also appears that the applicant did not produce any notice of demand to indicate that the complainant made demand for the payment of the said amount of the cheque by giving notice in writing to the opponent No. 1 within stipulated period as required under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore necessary ingredients of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not satisfied, hence, learned trial magistrate was justified in passing the impugned judgment. 8. Therefore necessary ingredients of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act are not satisfied, hence, learned trial magistrate was justified in passing the impugned judgment. 8. It also appears from the copy of the complaint annexed with the compilation that the complainant did not categorically gave details of the cheques and the notice allegedly sent to the opponent No.1. It is also not specifically alleged in the complaint that it was made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arose or that the complainant had sufficient cause for not making complaint within such period. 9. It also appears that despite giving sufficient opportunity the complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove its case. A copy of rojkam annexed with the compilation indicates that after recording of the evidence of Kiritbhai Champaklal on 24th March 2006, the case was adjourned to 6th May 2006, 13th July 2006, 27th September 2006, 27th December 2006 and thereafter to 11th January 2007. However on all these dates neither the complainant nor his advocate remained present in the Court. Therefore, by order dated 27th December 2006, the right to lead evidence of prosecution was closed and the matter was adjourned for recording of further statement of the accused. The further statement of the opponent No. 1 came to be recorded on 11th January 2007 but on that date also neither the complainant nor his advocate remained present. Thereafter the case was adjourned to 3rd February 2007 but on that date also neither complainant nor his advocate remained present and the matter was adjourned to 9th February 2007. On that day the complainant and his advocate remained present and the arguments were heard and the matter was adjourned for judgment. It appears from the conduct of the complainant that there was inaction and gross negligence on his part in proceeding with the case. Hence, the learned magistrate was justified in passing the impugned judgment after appreciating the evidence produced by the complainant. 10. In view of above, in my view the applicant has failed to make out any ground for the grant of special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court. 11. In the result, this application fails and stands dismissed.