JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The appellant-original complainant has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 30th May 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.188 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 by which the learned Judge was pleased to acquit the opponent No.1-original accused of the charges levelled against him. 2. The short facts of the complainant is that the present appellant-original complainant is a partner of Anand Trading Company and is dealing in business of Tea. It is the case of the complainant that the opponent No.1-original accused originally serving with him, but subsequently has started his own business in the name and style of "Mahadev Sales Agency". The opponent No.1- original accused was the sole proprietor of the said Mahadev Sales Agency. The opponent No.1-accused used to purchase tea and tea-leaves from the present appellant-original complainant and thus, they known to each other. It is the case of the appellant-original complainant that he has to take Rs. 25,000/- from the opponent No.1-original accused towards legally enforceable dues. It is the case of the complainant that in lieu of outstanding amount of Rs. 25,000/-, the opponent No.1-accused had issued an A/c. Payee cheque bearing No.009551 dated 01st January 2001 in the name of complainant's firm drawn on The Navnirma Co-operative Bank Limited, Asarva, Ahmedabad by making his signature as a Proprietor of Mahadev Sales Agency. The said cheque was issued by the opponent No.1-original accused with a promise and faith that the said cheque will be honoured on its presentation. It is the case of the present appellant that however, upon presenting the said cheque for clearing on 11th January 2001 with his Banker i.e. Development Credit Bank Limited, Relief Road, Ahmedabad, the same was dishonoured due to reasons "Payment stopped by drawer". The said fact came to the notice of the appellant by return memo of his Banker dated 12th January 2011. It is further the case of the complainant that therefore, the appellant-original complainant informed the opponent No.1-original accused about the fact that cheque was dishonoured, the opponent No.1-original accused gave evasive reply and tried to escape from his liability. The said fact came to the notice of the appellant by return memo of his Banker dated 12th January 2011. It is further the case of the complainant that therefore, the appellant-original complainant informed the opponent No.1-original accused about the fact that cheque was dishonoured, the opponent No.1-original accused gave evasive reply and tried to escape from his liability. Therefore, the appellant-original complainant issued a statutory notice dated 22nd January 2001 through his advocate by Registered Post A.D. As well as by UPC, which is duly served upon the opponent No.1-accused. Though the said notice was served upon the opponent No.1-original accused, neither the opponent No.1 has replied the notice nor repaid the cheque amount and therefore, appellant-original complainant filed a criminal complaint against the opponent No.1-original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad. 3. Thereafter summons was issued against the opponent No.1-original accused and as the opponent 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 opponent No.1-accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In his statement, the opponent No.2-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 opponent No.1-original accused from the charges alleged against him by Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 30th May 2003. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 30th May 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.5, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No.188 of 2001, the appellant-original complainant, has preferred the above mentioned Criminal Appeal. 6. Heard Mr.Dipak Raval, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opponent No.2-State. I have also gone through the papers produced before me and the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. 6. Heard Mr.Dipak Raval, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.L. Jani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the opponent No.2-State. I have also gone through the papers produced before me and the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Mr.Raval, 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 though the statutory notice is served upon the opponent No.1-original accused, neither the opponent No.1-original accused has replied the same nor he has repaid the cheque amount. Thus, there is a clear-cut breach of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He has also contended that though the opponent No.1-accused has not brought on record any evidence, the learned Judge has believed the case of the opponent No.1-accused. He has also contended that the appellant has proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and produced sufficient evidence to show that there is legal and enforceable debt due payable from the opponent No.1-original accused; however, without appreciating the evidence produced on record by the appellant, the learned Judge has passed the impugned order. He has contended that the appellant 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 of the case and evidence on record and is required to be quashed and set aside by this Hon'ble Court. 8. 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. 9. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Hence, this appeal requires to be dismissed. 9. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755 , the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. 10. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs v. 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. 11. 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 v. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 . 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The trial Court has, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, observed that the appellant while giving the agency to the opponent No.1-original accused, obtained blank cheques toward security. It is also observed by the learned Magistrate that when cheque was obtained by way of security, then in that case, complaint cannot be entertained. In the present case, the appellant-original complainant obtained blank cheques from the opponent No.1-original accused by way of a security and thereafter, misused the said cheque. It is observed by the learned Magistrate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a case of civil in nature and complainant cannot filed complaint against the opponent No.1-original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is observed by the learned Magistrate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this is a case of civil in nature and complainant cannot filed complaint against the opponent No.1-original accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 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 learned trial Judge 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. 15. Thus, the appellant could not bring home the charges against the opponent No.1-accused in the present appeal. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the opponent No.1-accused. Thus, from the evidence itself it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Mr.Raval, 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. 17. In above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the opponent No.1-accused of the charges levelled against him. 18. 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. 19. 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 30th May 2003 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.5, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.188 of 2001 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.