JUDGMENT : Rohit B. Deo, J. With consent, the appeal is finally heard. 2. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 5.9.2012 in Summary Criminal Case 1967 of 2010 rendered by the 24th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court), Nagpur by and under which respondent 1 is acquitted of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" for short). 3. The gist of the complaint was that the accused issued cheque 266476 dated 30.12.2009 for Rs.2,00,015/- towards discharge of existing debt or liability. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. It is the case of the complainant that the statutory notice which was issued, was not claimed, and the same is deemed to have been served. The complainant contends that since there was no compliance with the statutory notice, the complaint is instituted. The legally enforcible debt or liability is, according to the complainant, the refund of amount deposited by the complainant with the accused. 4. Several defences are raised by the accused. However, it is not necessary nor appropriate for this Court to make any observation whatsoever on the merits of the controversy. The only reason recorded by the learned Magistrate for dismissing the complaint is, that the signature on the disputed cheque does not match with the admitted handwriting of the accused. Shri Masood Sharif, the learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2012 (11) SCALE 365 . The enunciation of law by the Apex Court is that even if the cheque is dishonoured on the ground that the signature of the drawer of the cheque does not match the specimen signature available with the bank, the penal provisions of section 138 of the Act would be attracted. 5. However, since the learned Magistrate has not recorded any finding on the merits or otherwise on the rival contentions and the dismissal of the complaint is only on the ground that the signature on the disputed cheque does not match with the specimen signature available with the bank, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the learned Magistrate for consideration afresh. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. The judgment and order dated 5.9.2012 is set aside. 8. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 7. The judgment and order dated 5.9.2012 is set aside. 8. Leaving every question and defence expressly open, the proceedings are remitted to the 24th Judicial Magistrate First Class (Special Court), Nagpur for disposal on merits in accordance with law. 9. The learned Magistrate is requested to pass final orders within one month of the receipt of record and proceedings from this Court.