JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Gopal Lal Kakhani, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.2.2010 passed by the Special Judicial Magistrate (Negotiable Instruments Act Cases), Bhilwara, whereby the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1, Balmukand, for offences under Sections 138 of the N.I.Act. ('the Act', for short). 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Gopal Lal Kakhani, had submitted a complaint on 4.1.2007, before the learned trial court. In the complaint, he had claimed that he had given a loan of Rs. 10,000/- to Balmukand Soni. In order to repay the said loan, Balmukand Soni, had issued a cheque, cheque No. 041888 dated 15.6.2006, for the said amount. On 19.10.2006, when the complainant submitted the cheque for encashment, the cheque was dishonored on the ground of insufficient fund in the account. He further claimed that on 18.11.2006, he had sent a notice to Balmukand Soni. However, despite having received the said notice Balmukand Soni, failed to repay the loan amount within the stipulated period of fifteen days. 3. In order to buttress his case, the complainant examined himself as witness and submitted six documents. However, Mr. Balmukand Soni, neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 23.2.2010, the learned Judge acquitted Balmukand Soni, for offences under Sections 138 of the Act. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal before this Court. 4. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The Magistrate has erred in observing that the complainant had received the information with regard to dishonour of the cheque on 19.10.2006. The learned counsel had drawn the attention of the Court to Ex. P-3, which clearly shows that the information was received by the complainant on 20.10.2006. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has erred in concluding that the notice sent on 18.11.2006 was not within the stipulated period. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record produced by the learned counsel before this Court, and examined the impugned judgment. 6. Ex.P-3 is the written memo dated 19.10.2006, sent by the Bank. Therefore, obviously the complainant was informed about the dishonored cheque on 19.10.2006. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record produced by the learned counsel before this Court, and examined the impugned judgment. 6. Ex.P-3 is the written memo dated 19.10.2006, sent by the Bank. Therefore, obviously the complainant was informed about the dishonored cheque on 19.10.2006. Even if, 19.10.2006 were taken as the date of the knowledge by the appellant, still the notice was sent on 20.11.2006 i.e. on 31st day from the date of knowledge. Obviously, the notice was not sent within the stipulated period of 30 days. Since, the notice was not sent within the prescribed period, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accused-respondent of offence under Section 138 of the Act. 7. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment dated 23.2.2010. The criminal leave to appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.Leave to Appeal Dismissed. *******