Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109775 Court No. - 81 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS DEFECTIVE No. - 106 of 2025 Appellant :- Mohd. Yunus Khan Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Abhay Singh Kushwaha,Ramesh Singh Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Complainant-Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 413 B.N.S.S. to challenge the judgment dated 6.2.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghazipur in Criminal Case No. 5228 of 2012, titled Mohd. Yunus Khan Vs. Parvez Ahmad, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Kotwali, District Ghazipur, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused-respondent no. 2 in complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for appellant has argued that in all a sum of Rs.1,90,500/- was outstanding, which was to be paid by the accused, who in discharge of the said liability had issued various cheques and the same were got dishonoured on presentation. Learned counsel submits that in response to the statutory notice of demand issued by the complainant, no payment was made by the accused, therefore, it is clear that ingredients to constitute the offences were duly proved, but the trial court wrongly proceeded to acquit the accused. He further submits that during the trial proceedings, on 23.5.2022 the accused had given an undertaking that he wold return the due amount, but instead of keeping his word, he violated the said undertaking and did not make any payment. He prays that the impugned judgment dated 6.2.2025 be set aside and the accused-respondent no.2 be convicted. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering his submissions, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal as the trial court has carefully examined the material on record particularly, the evidence adduced by the complainant to hold that no offence under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused. Most importantly, the trial court has relied upon the defect in the complaint relating to the statutory notice, which concededly was sent beyond the statutory period of 30 days. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-complainant fairly states that cheques were dishonoured on 4.6.2010 whereas the statutory notice was issued on 16.7.2010, therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. The argument relating to the undertaking given by the accused is only regarding payment of money back to the complainant, whereas concededly, in this regard, no proceedings under Section 147 N.I. Act for compounding the offence were finalized by the complainant. At best, the undertaking can only be construed as an acknowledgement of debt by the accused, but it may not be enough to cure inherent defect in the complaint, which relates to the statutory notice of demand. A perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 6.2.2025 would show that the trial court has carefully examined the facts, circumstances and evidence on record while acquitting the accused. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference with the impugned findings returned on acquittal of the accused. Dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 P.S.Parihar Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- POORAN SINGH PARIHAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad