JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal is directed, against, the impugned judgment, of, 25.6.2010, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No.1, Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 129/III/2009, whereby the respondent herein (for short 'accused’), stood acquitted, by the learned trial Court, for, an offence punishable under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short “NI Act”). 2. Cheque bearing CW-1/A, carrying therein a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, stood issued by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant. The afore cheque, upon its presentation, before the Bank concerned, stood, as divulged by Ex. CW-1/E, hence declined, for want of sufficient funds, occurring in contemporaneity vis-a-vis its presentation, before the bank concerned, for being honored. Subsequently, on 18.4.2009, the complainant through his counsel, issued, a, statutory notice, borne in Ex. CW-1/C, upon, the accused, detailing therein the afore factum. The notice was sent through registered AD, and, the postman concerned, made an endorsement therein, qua the addressee refusing to accept it. 3. The complaint was filed on 12.5.2009. The apt statutory notice, is, contemplated in clause (c) of the proviso appended to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “ NI Act”), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, qua hence, it, being imperatively served upon the accused, (i) and, only upon elapse of 15 days, from, valid service of the statutory notice upon the addressee, (ii) thereupon the complainant being entitled to institute, a, validly constituted, and, a maintainable complaint, before the Magistrate concerned. However, the mandate of the afore clause (c) of Section 138 of the NI Act, is palpably infringed hereat, (iii) given, the peremptory mandate, borne therein, qua the apt statutory notice, being imperatively proven to be received by the addressee, remaining contravened, (iv) the afore inference is both expressly besides explicitly, acquired hence by the coinage “within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice” occurring in clause (c) of section 138 of NI Act. “ (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” 4. “ (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” 4. Moreso, when the statutory coinage “receipt” occurring therein, cannot hold any signification, than qua, the statute explicitly contemplating qua it being imperative for the addressee, being validly served, and, contrarily when hereat no valid service of notice, is, made upon the noticee, rather an endorsement is occurring therein, qua his refusing to accept the notice, and, when no provisions analogous to the apt provisions borne in the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein it stands contemplated qua upon refusal of the litigant concerned, to, accept summons, he is deemed to be statutorily served, rather exist in the NI Act, (i) thereupon, for want of any provisions in the NI Act bearing likeness or similarity therewith, hence, the complainant, cannot derive any leverage therefrom, to, dehors, effectuation of, valid service, being made upon the noticee, hence institute the extant complaint, nor, thereupon, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is to be concluded to be either invalid or unsustainable, contrarily the complaint is to be held to be premature. In making the afore conclusion, this Court derive strength from a judgment reported in (2014) 10 SCC, titled as Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. Savitri Pandey. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed, as, also the pending applications if any.