JUDGMENT : Z.K. SAIYED, J. 1. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1999 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra, in Criminal Case No.2026 of 1999 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by which the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent No.1-accused of the charges levelled against him. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case is that the present appellant and the respondent No.1-accused knew each other and therefore, at the request of the respondent No.1-accused, the appellant advanced loan of Rs. 60,000/- to the respondent No.1-accused. It is also the case of the prosecution that in this connection the respondent No.1-accused issued an Account Payee cheque bearing No.748965 dated 16th September 1996 of Rs. 30,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Station Road, Godhra in favour of the present appellant towards part payment. It is the case of the present appellant that however, upon presenting the said cheque for clearing, the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent No.1-accused. It is the case of the prosecution that therefore the appellant issued statutory notice dated 26th September 1996 to the respondent No.1-accused which returned with an endorsement "unclaimed". Therefore, the appellant filed a criminal complaint bearing No.2026 of 1996 against the respondent No.1-accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Thereafter summons was issued against the respondent No.1-accused and as the respondent No.1-accused has not pleaded guilty, evidence on behalf of the appellant-complainant was exhibited. The prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the case. After filing closing pursis, further statement of the respondent No.1-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his statement, the respondent No.1-accused has denied the case of the prosecution and claimed to be tried. 4. Thereafter, trial was conducted before the learned Judge. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent No.1-accused from the charges alleged against him by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1996. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution has produced oral as well as documentary evidence. After considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent No.1-accused from the charges alleged against him by the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1996. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1996 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra in Criminal Case No.2026 of 1996, the appellant-original complainant, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal. 6. Heard Mr. A.S. Panesar, learned counsel for Mr. S.S. Panesar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.P.V. Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2-State. I have also gone through the papers produced before me and the Judgment and Order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Mr. Panesar, learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is not proper, legal and it is erroneous. He has also argued that the learned Judge has not considered the evidence of the witnesses. He has contended that the learned Judge has grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion of non-production of original cheque in question, which was produced on record later on during the cross-examination of the appellant. He has also contended that the learned Judge has failed to consider the deposition of the officer of the Bank, who has categorically stated that the cheque in question was dishonoured because of insufficient funds in the account of the respondent No.1. He has contended that the prosecution has proved its case against the respondent No.1-accused beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, contended that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is without appreciating the facts and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. Mr. Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-accused has contended that absolutely false case is filed against the respondent No.1. He has also contended that this is a offence of 138 of the Act and without any documentary evidence, prosecution cannot prove the case. 8. Mr. Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-accused has contended that absolutely false case is filed against the respondent No.1. He has also contended that this is a offence of 138 of the Act and without any documentary evidence, prosecution cannot prove the case. He has also read the cross-examination of the complainant as well as officer of the Bank and argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore, contended that the present appeal is required to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 9. It is a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the Appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings when the Appellate Court is in agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court acquitting the accused. In the instant case, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the trial Court while acquitting the respondents-accused and adopting the said reasons and for the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed. 10. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa Vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007)3 SCC 75, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. 11. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. state of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 12. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasoning, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1417. 13. Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 14. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1417. 13. Thus, in case the Appellate Court agrees with the reasons and the opinion given by the lower court, then the discussion of evidence is not necessary. 14. I have gone through the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial Court and also considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the parties. 15. The trial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, observed that the appellant and the respondent No.1-accused knew each other. It is also observed by the learned Judge that the complainant was failed to produce on record cheque return memo or notice. Even original cheque was also not produced on record though it was with him. The learned Judge has also observed that even officer of the Bank had also not produced any documentary evidence on record. Even the appellant-original complainant has not proved that the statutory notice was served upon the respondent No.1-accused. It transpires from the papers that the notice was not served upon the respondent No.1-accused and returned unserved. It is also observed by the learned Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the ingredient of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court has observed that there are serious lacuna in the oral as well as documentary evidence of prosecution. Nothing is produced on record of this appeal to rebut the concrete findings of the Trial Court. 16. Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charges against the respondent No.1-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the respondent No.1-accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. Mr. Panesar, learned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record. 18. 17. Mr. Panesar, learned counsel for the appellant, is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view in the matter or that the approach of the trial Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial Court has ignored the material evidence on record. 18. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent No.1-accused of the charges levelled against him. 19. I find that the findings recorded by the trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. 20. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 26th February 1996 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (JD) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhra, in Criminal Case No. 2026 of 1996 is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stands discharged. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal dismissed.