JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13-7-2006 rendered by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad in Criminal Case No. 1623 of 2000. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Chandulal Keshavlal Modi has given power of attorney to the complainant and by virtue of the said power of attorney, the complainant has lodged the present complaint against the accused. It is alleged that the accused demanded the money from Chandulal Modi for his business purpose and accordingly, Rs. 2 lakhs was given for which the accused executed the promissory note. It is alleged that Chandulal Modi invested the amount in M.I.S. Post Office Scheme through the accused and by getting the signature of said Chandulal Modi on the withdrawal form, the accused has withdrawn the said amount, but the said amount was not given to said Chandulal Modi. It is alleged that on demand, the accused given the cheque of Rs. 2,00,000/- but on depositing the said cheque, it returned on the ground of "fund insufficient". Thereafter, the notice was issued to the accused through the Advocate and ultimately, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent-accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the plea of the accused came to be recorded vide Exh. 2 which came to be denied by the accused. Thereafter, the evidence on oath was recorded at Exh. 3. At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far, and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1. Mr. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far, and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1. Mr. Raj guru, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned Advocate has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that as the accused had not disputed the signature on the cheque as well as the cheque was handed over to the complainant by the accused, and therefore, there was no dispute as regards to the fact that the amount was due and payable and in view of thereof, even if the accounts are not produced and proved, it does not make any difference. Further, on the point of statutory notice, learned Advocate for the appellant placed reliance upon various judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts which are as under: (i) C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhamed, reported in 2007 (6) SCC 555 ; (ii) S.K. Tamisuddin v. Joy Joseph Creado, Criminal Appeal No. 237 of 2012; (iii) Shashi Mohan Goyanka v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 1187 of 2017 and allied matters; (iv) Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda, Criminal Appeal No. 803 of 2018; (v) B.M. Basavaraj v. Srinivas S. Datta, 2016 Law Suit (SC) 1474; (vi) G.L. Sharma v. Hemant Kishor, Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2011 and allied matters; (vii) V.S. Yadav v. Reena, reported in 2010 (4) JCC 323; (viii) Bhawish Chand Sharma v. Bawa Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 965 of 2016; and (ix) A.C. Marauamam v. State of Maharashtra,.... He, therefore, submitted that since the complainant has mentioned correct address of the residence as well as place of service of the accused, and therefore, even if the endorsement made by the postal authority as "not known" or "left the house" makes no difference and it should be considered to be service of valid notice, more particularly, in view of the above referred decisions as well as in view of the clear provisions of Sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897. In his submission, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondent is required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other hand, Mr. J.R. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Dave further submitted that the accused cannot be linked with the crime in question as the complainant has failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards any debt or liability in due discharge thereof. He further submitted that for want of statutory notice, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint which does not call for any interference. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. Rajyaguru, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for the respondent-accused. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned Advocates for the respective parties, this Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper-book. The postal acknowledgment certificate produced at page 61 of the paper-book clearly indicates that three addresses have been shown which are almost the same indicating residential address as well as place of service of the respondent accused, whereas registered acknowledgment i.e. postal receipt at Page 63 of the paper-book discloses only one address of the respondent wherein initial endorsement by the postal authority clearly indicates "not known" and thereafter also second attempt was made; at that time, it was clearly stated on 23rd October by endorsement that the respondent-accused is not residing there and he has vacated the house. In view of the aforesaid factual position, indisputably, the notice could not be served upon the respondent-accused. 9. This Court has minutely gone through ratio came to be propounded by the Apex Court in the above-referred two decisions as well as this Court and other High Courts. In view of the aforesaid factual position, indisputably, the notice could not be served upon the respondent-accused. 9. This Court has minutely gone through ratio came to be propounded by the Apex Court in the above-referred two decisions as well as this Court and other High Courts. Indisputably, the facts in the present case and the facts before the Apex Court as well as other High Courts are quite different. In the present case, the first endorsement "not known" is not equivalent to "refuse" or "unclaimed". Similarly, the second attempt clearly indicates that the person has vacated and left the house and was not residing by itself is clearly indicating that the notice is not served upon the respondent-accused. The aforesaid factual scenario is clearly pleaded in the complaint itself by the complainant and that has been stated on oath. Even, in the cross examination also, the complainant had admitted the said fact. In this view of the matter, for want of effective service of statutory notice, the complaint is not maintainable. 10. It is also pertinent to note that letter sent through U.P.C. mentions three addresses, whereas in the Registered A.D. letter, only one address of residence of the accused is mentioned which was found to be vacated. It can also be noticed that incidentally, in the second complaint also which came to be filed by the very complainant against very respondent-accused wherein while considering the leave to appeal i.e. Misc. Criminal Application No. 6247 of 2007, this Court passed the following order on 4-10-2007: "The applicant has sought leave to file Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 20, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No. 1622 of 2000. The judgment and order of acquittal are dated 12-4-2007. The offence alleged against the opponent No. 1 is under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'). It is the case of the applicant that the opponent-accused had issued three cheques, one dated 10-7-2000 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, second dated 20-7-2000 for Rs. 50,000/- and the third dated 31-7-2000 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac. He had assured the applicant that the cheques would be honoured. However, upon presentation, they were returned with an endorsement of 'insufficient fund' in the said account. 50,000/-, second dated 20-7-2000 for Rs. 50,000/- and the third dated 31-7-2000 for a sum of Rs. 1 lac. He had assured the applicant that the cheques would be honoured. However, upon presentation, they were returned with an endorsement of 'insufficient fund' in the said account. He, therefore, after complying with the necessary requirements as provided under the Act, lodged complaint and led evidence. However, the learned Magistrate, on the basis of the material produced before him and also on the basis of the oral evidence, arrived at conclusion that the applicant had not proved that he was holder in due course; that the notice was served on the opponent accused, and thereby, he acquitted. Hence this application. 2. I have heard Mr. Rajguru, learned Advocate for the applicant, Mr. Dave, learned Advocate for opponent No. 1 and Ms. Archana Raval, learned A.P.P. for opponent No. 2-State. The first and foremost question is whether notice which was despatched by the applicant was received by opponent-accused. The discussion of the learned Magistrate shows that the notice which was despatched by the applicant was tried to be served on opponent accused, but it could not be served because he was not found at the given address and ultimately it transpired that he had already left the place and had gone to stay at some other place. It is the submission of Mr. Rajguru that since the opponent-accused is a postal employee, he has managed to evade the service of notice. However, there is nothing on record to show that after return of the notice the applicant had ever tried to ascertain the fact that opponent-accused stayed at the original address. He could have very well verified this fact because the opponent is President of Ahmedabad City P. & T. Employees and the applicant is also residing here. No such attempt has been made. Mr. Rajguru has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama Naidu, reported in 2004 (8) SCC 774 . In the said decision the Apex Court has held that if the notice is despatched or given by the holder in due course at the correct address, the requirement can be said to be complied with. However, from the aforesaid evidence it cannot be said that it was sent at a correct address. In the said decision the Apex Court has held that if the notice is despatched or given by the holder in due course at the correct address, the requirement can be said to be complied with. However, from the aforesaid evidence it cannot be said that it was sent at a correct address. As already stated, the applicant never went to ascertain the fact with regard to opponent's residence. It also transpires that he has left the original residence and is staying at other place. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the applicant had sent the notice at correct address. Therefore, the aforesaid decision will not help the applicant. Since the mandatory requirement is not complied with, the prosecution has to prove, I do not find any error committed by the learned Magistrate. On this ground alone the acquittal is required to be maintained. Hence, this application is rejected. Leave refused. Notice discharged." 11. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 12. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent-accused of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial Court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned Court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 13. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R. & P. to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.