Judgment :- Heard counsel for the parties. 2.This application is filed for leave to file an appeal against the order dated 3rd December, 2008 by which the trial court acquitted respondent no.1 of the offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 3.The applicant claims to have given a hand loan of Rs.80,000/- to respondent no.1 towards discharge of which the cheque in question was allegedly given. It is noted by the trial court that the applicant has not brought any evidence before the court as regards the hand loan. It was his deposition that the amount was given in cash to respondent no.1 in the presence of his wife, one Hanumant Waigade and one Shivaji Todkar. The applicant has however not examined any of these persons. 4.It has been the case and evidence of respondent no.1, who has examined himself that the applicant who is an advocate had appeared for him in Special Civil Suit No.234 of 2002. That suit was decreed granting compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- to respondent no.1. The dispute however came to be settled at the stage of execution proceedings. Respondent no.1 had paid professional fees to the applicant to the extent of Rs.24,500/-. The applicant represented to him that after withdrawal of the execution proceedings, there would be refund of the court-fees paid on the proceedings and for that purpose, an account is required to be opened with a bank. The applicant tricked him into opening an account with Union Bank of India, Kolhapur where the applicant himself held an account. After opening of the account when the cheque book was issued to respondent no.1, the applicant obtained the signature of respondent no.1 on a blank cheque and later misused the same. The applicant does not dispute that the account with Union Bank of India was opened with his assistance. He however contends that he had done so only at the request of respondent no.1. It is seen that respondent no.1 has filed a complaint against the applicant with Bar Council of Maharashtra in connection with his professional conduct relating to Special Civil Suit No.232 of 2002. On the background of the above facts, the trial court has held that the applicant has failed to establish that there was any legally enforceable debt due from respondent no.1 to the applicant and acquitted respondent no.1. On the background of the above facts, the trial court has held that the applicant has failed to establish that there was any legally enforceable debt due from respondent no.1 to the applicant and acquitted respondent no.1. The view taken by the learned Judge is a reasonable and possible view. In my opinion, no interference with the same is warranted. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. 5.With the rejection of leave to file appeal, the appeal does not survive. The same also stands dismissed.