ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.02.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 763 of 2012/T.R. Case No. 178 of 2018, whereunder, the sole accused/opposite party no. 2 has been acquitted from the charge under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the accused had issued a cheque, bearing no. 0155524, dated 15.12.2011, drawn in the name of Axis Bank, for Rs. 6.50 Lakh, in favour of the complainant, which on being deposited got dishonoured on 18.2.2012 on account of ‘insufficient fund’. Thereafter, the legal notice was sent through his lawyer on 19.3.2012, which was duly received by the accused and he replied also. He denied his liabilities to pay the amount. 4. After examination of the complainant on solemn affirmation by the learned Trial Court the accused was summoned to face trial under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 15.6.2012. 5. The accused had appeared, denied the accusation and pleaded not guilty. The trial commenced and complainant examined himself as C.W. 1. After conclusion of his evidence, the statement of the accused person was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. on 18.09.2017. According to the defence, the cheque had not been issued by him. The learned trial court discussed the evidences of the complainant together with the allegations made in the complaint and also considered the stand of the defence and came to a finding that there was no legal liability upon the accused as nowhere in the complaint it was mentioned that for what liability the accused had issued the cheque in favour of the complainant. The complainant had deposed in his chief that accused had given him the said cheque after taking his share certificate. However, it did not come to the reason that the money regarding the share certificate would go in any other account except the share holder account. The defendant had been able to rebut the presumption. 6. Learned Trial Court also held that the complainant had on his part failed to establish the ingredients of the offence and to show that there was an existing enforceable legal liability upon the accused. The defendant had been able to rebut the presumption. 6. Learned Trial Court also held that the complainant had on his part failed to establish the ingredients of the offence and to show that there was an existing enforceable legal liability upon the accused. Moreover, the cheque was not proved rather only the signature of the accused upon it was proved by the complainant. The learned trial court also observed that though C.W. 1 had deposed that legal notice had been delivered and accused had replied to the same but no reply notice was filed by the complainant. The defence had denied the address mentioned on Ext.-4 i.e. postal receipt. Moreover, Ext.-2, the return memo showed that the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “Payment stopped by the drawer”, but C.W. 1 had deposed the reason to be “insufficient fund”. The complainant had produced the following documentary evidence:- (i) Ext.-1 signature on cheque no. 015524; (ii) Ext.-2 cheque return memo;(iii) Ext.-3 Legal Notice and (iv) Ext.-4 Registered slip. 7. Complainant had not adduced any acknowledgement due or proof of service of notice dispatched on 19.03.2012 on the accused, though the complaint was filed within less than 30 days thereof i.e. on 17.04.2012. The defence had also taken up a plea that the complaint petition was premature as Ext.-3, legal notice was sent on 19.3.2012 but the complaint petition had been filed on 17.4.2012. 8. The certified copies of the exhibits has also been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of hearing and perusal of Ext.-4, postal receipts confirms that it was dispatched on 19.3.2012. There are no other evidences adduced by the petitioner as observed herein above relating to service of notice on the accused prior to completion of 30 days period from the date of the dispatch of the legal notice through registered post. As such, it is evident that before expiry of the 30 days period from the date of dispatch of the registered notice and without any other evidence to show that the legal notice had been received by the accused earlier to 30 days period in the nature of acknowledgement due signed by the accused or the reply purported to have been sent by the accused the complaint was filed. The ingredients of sub-clause (c) of proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not seem to have been fulfilled on the part of the complainant. 9. As noted above, the complainant had on his part stated that the cheque was dishonoured due to “insufficient fund” but the endorsement of the return memo had showed that the payment was stopped by the drawer. The complainant in his cross examination had also deposed that he had deposited money in share of different companies and accused had issued the said cheque for the same. He had admitted that he had not filed any document in the court regarding the share. Amount, name and date had not been written by the accused on the cheque and it was only his signature which was proved as Ext.-1. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment. Consideration of the relevant pleadings as mentioned in the complaint together with the material evidence adduced on behalf of the parties goes to show that the learned trial court had sufficient reason to hold that the complainant had not been successful in bringing home the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. We therefore do not find merit in this petition to allow special leave to appeal for assailing the impugned judgment before the appellate court. 11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.