JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal under section 378(4)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.7.2007 rendered by learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patan in Criminal Case No.906 of 2006. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the complainant is a bank engaged in dispensing credit to its members. It is alleged that the husband of the accused has obtained the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 2.8.2003 from the complainant bank for his business purpose. It is alleged that for payment of the said loan amount, the accused has given the cheque No.151296 dated 28.4.2006 of Bank of Baroda, Patan. It is alleged that on deposit of the said cheque for encashment in the bank, it was returned due to insufficient funds. Thereafter, the notice was issued to the respondent accused, but the payment was not made. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondent accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge-sheet against the respondent accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also produced documentary evidences. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the CrPC 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. 6. Mr. Chirag B.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 6. Mr. Chirag B.Patel, 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 though there appears no dispute that the present respondent accused had issued the aforesaid cheque for due amount of Rs.1,08,000/- in order to discharge liability of her husband and as the cheque in question was bounced, the said transaction was coming within the purview of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Mr. Chirag Patel, learned advocate further pointed out that the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence of the official of the complainant bank are totally in consistent with each other and that the cheque in question was issued in order to meet out the liability created by the husband of the respondent accused and therefore, the transaction in question is squarely falling under the provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, the case can be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 7. This Court has heard Mr. Chirag B. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms. Punani, learned APP for the respondent State. 8. 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. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order as well as Record and Proceedings minutely, it is emerging out that the complainant is a cooperative bank which is dealing in dispensing credit to its members. The husband of the respondent accused i.e. Harneshkumar Modi secured the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on 2.8.2003 for his own business purpose from the complainant bank. Thereafter, he was not regular in payment of the installment of the loan and therefore, he became defaulter. Therefore, for recovery of due amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, the present respondent who is wife of said loanee Harneshkumar issued the cheque which came to be bounced and thereafter, statutory notice was also served upon the respondent accused and ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was lodged. Therefore, for recovery of due amount of Rs.1,08,000/-, the present respondent who is wife of said loanee Harneshkumar issued the cheque which came to be bounced and thereafter, statutory notice was also served upon the respondent accused and ultimately, the aforesaid complaint was lodged. Thereafter, she was tried and after conclusion of trial and hearing, learned trial Court held that there was no privity of contract between the parties and the cheque in question could not be termed to be given to the complainant bank for any clearance of debt on the part of the present respondent accused and hence, ingredients of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not constituted so as to bring the aforesaid transaction of bouncing of cheque within the purview of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as punishable. 10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and on overall analysis of the evidence on record, indisputably, as per the case of the complainant bank itself, the loan was advanced to the husband of the present respondent accused and therefore, the husband of the present respondent was loanee and there was privity of contract between the complainant bank and husband of the present respondent and not with the present respondent. As per the case of the complainant, the present respondent has to discharge liability of debt created by her husband as alleged cheque was handed over by the respondent accused. In order to prove the aforesaid assertion, the complainant had not joined the husband – loanee – Harneshkumar Modi as party respondent accused and therefore, the complainant failed to prove and bring on record the alleged transaction between the husband of the present respondent and the complaint bank within the purview of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unless the husband of the respondent accused could be impleaded as co-accused along with the respondent accused, no liability could have been fastened upon the respondent for discharging liability on the part of the husband of the respondent accused. For that simple reason also, the present respondent could not have been prosecuted for alleged bouncing of cheque in question as there was no privity of contract between the complainant bank and the present respondent. 11. For that simple reason also, the present respondent could not have been prosecuted for alleged bouncing of cheque in question as there was no privity of contract between the complainant bank and the present respondent. 11. Even otherwise also, this Court has gone through the detailed judgment rendered by learned Magistrate wherein each and every aspect has been dealt with answered all the points of determination. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant bank has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused which calls for no interference. 12. 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. 13. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her. 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. 14. 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.