SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.: - The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 4.12.2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Pune in SCC No.45583 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent No.1-orig. accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the Applicant-Orig.complainant. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 3. The case of the complainant is that she had advanced loan of Rs.3,20,000/- to the accused. The accused issued cheque in question to her in discharge of the said liability. As the cheque was not honoured, complaint came to be filed. The complainant has not mentioned the date and the amount paid to the accused on such dates in her complaint. No details have been given as to what amount has been advanced and on what dates it was advanced to the accused. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she had Rs.3,20,000/- with her to pay the accused from 19.3.2005 to 20.8.2006. On the contrary the complainant is a housewife. She has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she had any source of income. In cross-examination the complainant has stated that she borrowed loan of Rs.4,00,000/- from Pune Urban Co-operative Bank on 19.3.2005. Her case is that she paid accused out of the said amount. The complainant was paying monthly instalment of Rs.3,158/-. The alleged amount of Rs.3,20,000/- is paid by the complainant from 19.3.2005 to 20.8.2006. The complainant has further stated in her cross-examination that she is earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that she is earning Rs.7000/- to Rs.8000/- per month. There is nothing to show that she was earning at all. The complainant is not paying income tax nor has she produced any documents showing availability of Rs.3,20,000/- with her to make the payment. This creates doubt whether the complainant was earning and she was having Rs.3,20,000/- so as to advance it to the accused. Moreover, the complainant’s case is that she had borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from bank and she was paying monthly instalment of Rs.3158/- thereon. This creates doubt whether the complainant was earning and she was having Rs.3,20,000/- so as to advance it to the accused. Moreover, the complainant’s case is that she had borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from bank and she was paying monthly instalment of Rs.3158/- thereon. It is difficult to accept that the complainant borrowed money from the bank on which she would pay interest, so as to advance interest free loan to the accused. No prudent person will borrow such a huge amount and pay instalments thereon so as to help a friend. 4. On the other hand, the accused was earning Rs.6071/- per month as she was working as a Peon in school. In such case, it was possible for her to take loan from the bank and it was not necessary for her to approach the complainant for loan. As stated earlier, there is nothing in writing between the complainant and the accused in respect of advancing such a huge loan. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 6. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and 1 C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 . In the case of Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. 7. As observed above, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected.