JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J. (Oral): Heard. 2. By this petition, the applicant-petitioner seeks leave to appeal I against the order dated 26.6.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the accusations under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Case of the petitioner/complainant against the respondent is that the latter issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner on 5.6.2001, but the same bounced for want of funds in the account of the respondent. The petitioner served the respondent with a notice as required under Section 138 of the Act through registered post. The respondent, however, did not make the payment within the prescribed period, hence the petitioner lodged the complaint. After recording the preliminary evidence, the trial Court summoned the respondent and accusations were put to him under Section 138 of the Act. After recording evidence of the petitioner, statement of the respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence evidence of the respondent, the trial Court after hearing the parties found the respondent not guilty of the accusations and accordingly acquitted him by the judgment sought to be impugned, hence this petition. 4. It was contended for the petitioner that the issue of the cheque bouncing thereof, service of the requisite notice and non-payment were, duly proved in view of the evidence led by the petitioner. Therefore, this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent. 5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent supported the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court leading to the acquittal. 6. It is not in dispute that cheque Ext. P6 was issued by the respondent and on presentation was dishonoured. It is also not in dispute but is admitted by the petitioner that he had taken the cheque in question from the respondent towards the payment to be made to him by the wife of the respondent. In view of this admission, what cans be said is that the cheque in question was not issued by the respondent to discharge any debt owned by him to the petitioner. There is no evidence that the respondent by virtue of any agreement ever agreed to discharge the debt or liability of his wife towards the petitioner. In view of this admission, what cans be said is that the cheque in question was not issued by the respondent to discharge any debt owned by him to the petitioner. There is no evidence that the respondent by virtue of any agreement ever agreed to discharge the debt or liability of his wife towards the petitioner. A conviction can be recorded under Section 138 of the Act only when it is proved that the cheque drawn by a person on an amount maintained by him with a Banker for payment of any amount of money to another person out of that account was issued for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability by the drawer of the cheque. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner and there being no evidence that the respondent had agreed to discharge the debt/liability of his wife, the trial Court has rightly concluded that the respondent could not be held guilty of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. 7. The other factor which weighed with the trial Court in recording the acquittal of the respondent is that the petitioner had filed a case under Section 468 I PC against the respondent vide FIR Ext. DX. On investigation and after taking the opinion about the handwriting/genuineness of the receipts Exts. DW-7/A to DW7/E issued by the petitioner to the respondent, it was found that the said receipts regarding payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the respondent to the petitioner on 8.6.2001, 9.6.2001, 11,6.2001, 12.6.2001 and 13.6.2001 were genuine. It was found that these payments were made by the respondent in lieu of the cheque in question. Evidently, the amount of cheque to be paid in cash by the respondent to the petitioner stood paid vide aforesaid receipts before the expiry of 15 days period from the date of issue of notice. Thus, even if it is assumed that the respondent was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner and issued the cheque in question in discharge of such liability, since the amount of the cheque stood paid to the petitioner vide aforesaid receipts before the expiry of 15 days period from the date of issue of notice. Therefore, respondent could not be held guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. Therefore, respondent could not be held guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. In view of the above, no infirmity or illegality is shown in the impugned order of acquittal and thus this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. 9. As a result, this petition is dismissed.