JUDGMENT : Bankim N. Mehta, J. Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned JMFC, Surat on 30.3.2009 in Criminal Case No.33861 of 2006 filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the Act"). 2. According to the appellant - original complainant, he is doing the business of selling the cycles. The respondent accused purchased cycles on credit on 20.2.2006 worth Rs. 41,414/and five bills for the same were given to the respondent accused. The respondent accused gave cheque No.042677 dated 6.4.2006 drawn on the Gujarat Industrial Cooperative Bank Limited, Udhana branch for Rs. 41,414/. On deposit of the cheque in the bank, the same has returned with an endorsement "Fund Insufficient" on 31.5.2006. Therefore, notice was served to the respondent accused on 7.6.2006. However, the respondent accused did not pay the unpaid amount of the cheque. Therefore, the complaint under section 138 of the Act was filed in the Court of learned CJM, Surat and it was registered as Criminal Case No.33861 of 2006. 3. The trial Court issued summons to respondent No.2, who appeared and pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the complainant adduced evidence in support of his case. On completion of recording of evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against respondent No.2 were explained to him. Respondent No.2 in his further statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied having committed the offence and has stated that the cheque in question was given as security and he has not purchased any goods from the complainant and cheque has been misused. After hearing learned advocates for the parties, the trial Court by impugned judgment acquitted respondent No.2. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant - original complainant has preferred this acquittal appeal. 4. I have heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Jain for respondent No.2 at length and in great detail. I have also heard learned APP Ms. Shah for the respondent No.1 - State. I have also perused the R & P of the trial Court. 5. 4. I have heard learned advocate Ms. Kruti Shah for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Jain for respondent No.2 at length and in great detail. I have also heard learned APP Ms. Shah for the respondent No.1 - State. I have also perused the R & P of the trial Court. 5. It appears from the impugned judgment that the respondent accused allegedly gave cheque in question on 6.4.2006 and the same was dishonoured on 31.5.2006 on account of insufficient funds. Thereafter, Notice was given on 7.6.2006. It also appears that earlier a notice dated 12.4.2006 was given for the return of the same cheque. Therefore, it emerges that after return of the cheque unpaid, the appellant served a notice to the respondent informing him about dishonour of cheque on account of insufficient funds, but did not file complaint as required under section 142 of the Act and again deposited the cheque, which was again dishonoured on 31.5.2006. Therefore, again a notice dated 7.6.2006 was served to the respondent informing him about dishonour of cheque and as the amount of unpaid cheque was not paid, complaint was filed. This clearly indicates that after dishonour of cheque, on the first occasion, the appellant did not file complaint as required under section 142 of the Act. Under section 138(B) of the Act, the payee or holder, in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, is required to demand for the payment of amount of money to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days on receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid by giving a notice in writing. 5.1 Section 138(c) provides that if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice, the payee or holder, in due course, gets a right to file proceedings under section 142 of the Act. 5.2 Section 142 of the Act provides that complaint for dishonour of cheque is required to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under section 138(c) of the Act. 5.2 Section 142 of the Act provides that complaint for dishonour of cheque is required to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises under section 138(c) of the Act. It further provides that cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within such period. 6. It is not in dispute in the present case that the appellant did not file the complaint within 30 days from the date of notice to the respondent accused as required under section 138 of the Act when the cheque was dishonoured for the first time. On the contrary, after informing the respondent about the dishonour of the cheque, the appellant again presented the cheque in the bank, which was again dishonoured. It is alleged that the respondent informed the appellant to present the cheque again. However, there is no documentary evidence to indicate that the cheque was presented second time under the instructions of the respondent. Record and proceedings of the trial Court indicate that the appellant gave notice Exh13 on 12.4.2006 informing the respondent about dishonour of the cheque. On perusal of the notice, it appears that the cheque in question was returned unpaid on 6.4.2006. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant complainant did not file complaint within prescribed period under section 142 of the Act. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in acquitting the respondent accused. Learned advocate Ms. Shah for the appellant has not been able to establish any infirmity in the impugned judgment. 7. In the result, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. Petition disposed of.