JUDGMENT :- The applicant-orig. complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 5th February, 2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Solapur in Summary Criminal Case No.579 of 1999. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted respondent No.l-orig. accused of the offence under Section of 138 of N.I. Act. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had agreed to sell a truck to the accused. By way of part payment for the said truck, the accused gave the complainant the cheque in question. As the cheque was dishonoured, complaint came to be filed. 3. I have 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 produced by the learned Counsel for the applicant-orig. Complainant. 4. In the present case, it is seen that the cheque in question, memo of the bank relating to dishonour of cheque, notice and acknowledgement in respect of receipt of notice has not been produced by the complainant. None of these documents were produced by the complainant when his evidence came to be led. The office copy of the notice was not produced by the complainant and he has produced the Xerox copy. In fact in the cross-examination the complainant has stated that he does not remember the date when he issued the notice. No doubt contents of the document can be proved by leading secondary evidence. However, in the present case, there is no application preferred by the complainant for leading secondary evidence. The learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that at the time of filing of the complaint all the documents were shown to the Court and they were verified and returned back to the complainant and hence in such case, it is not necessary for the complainant to produce these documents again and lead evidence in respect of the same. No doubt the complainant may have produced these documents along with his complaint, however, while leading his evidence, especially in his examination-in-chief he ought to have got necessary documents produced and proved. In the present case, none of these vital documents have been produced by the complainant. None of these documents which are vital in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been proved by the complainant. In the present case, none of these vital documents have been produced by the complainant. None of these documents which are vital in a case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been proved by the complainant. Taking this aspect into consideration, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the respondent No.1 accused. 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. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. Appeal rejected.