JUDGMENT (1) IN this petition the petitioner has prayed for special leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 5-12-2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 1167 of 2004 by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi. By the said judgment learned court below has acquitted the accused-opposite party No. 2 of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable INstruments Act. (2) THE fact of the case, in brief, is as under :- THE complainant - M/s. Shivam Finance and Leasing Company carries on business of finance and hire purchase of motor vehicle. THE accused - opposite party No. 2 had taken loan from the complainant and in order to pay liability towards the truck bearing registration No. BR13H/2292 had issued a cheque bearing No. 427421 dated 12-10-2004 for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- drawn on United Bank of India, Ranchi Branch in favour of the complainant, This cheque was presented for encashment on 27-10-2004 but the Bank returned the same with the endorsement of reason 'insufficient fund'. THE complainant thereafter, sent a legal notice of demand dated 2-11-2004 through registered post with A/ D, but the accused-opposite party No. 2 did not make payment of the amount. THE complainant, thereafter, lodged the complaint. On the said complaint the accused-opposite party was summoned for trial. The opposite party appeared. Substance of accusation under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. (3) THE complainant examined as many as five witnesses and also produced documents, THE defence also produced several documents. (4) SOLE proprietor of the complainant-Firm Raj Kumar Dhanuko was examined himself as P.W. 4. He stated that truck was financed with the accused, who had given a cheque dated 12-10-2004 of Rs. 2,75,000/-drawn on the United Bank of India. Due to insufficient fund in the account of the accused the cheque could not be honoured and hence the complaint was lodged. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that no cheque was given at the time of signing of agreement, neither the accused had given any earnest money. He also admitted that the signature of the accused on cheque and amount have been entered with two different pens and there was difference of ink as well. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that no cheque was given at the time of signing of agreement, neither the accused had given any earnest money. He also admitted that the signature of the accused on cheque and amount have been entered with two different pens and there was difference of ink as well. He also admitted that he sold the truck after taking possession of the same from the accused and that proceeds of the same were set-off against the value of the truck. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 were also examined in support of the prosecution case. On behalf of the defence the accused himself examined as D.W. 1 and stated that in the year 2001 he had purchased a truck bearing registration No. BR 13 H 2292 for which hire purchase agreement was drawn and he had given a blank cheque by way of security bearing his signature only which has been marked as Ext.-1. After 4-5 months of purchase the complainant seized the truck, sold it and adjusted the amount towards the loan sanctioned. Thereafter, he had no outstanding amount in favour of the complainant. (5) LEARNED trial court scrutinized the evidence and material on record and found that in the complaint petition it was stated that cheque No. 427421 dated 12-10-2004 was issued for a sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- in favour of the complainant in discharge of part debt/ liability towards hire purchase of truck bearing registration No. BR 13 H 2292. The amount of loan given to the accused has no mention in the complain petition. However, the schedule appended to the hire purchase agreement entered between the parties reveals that Rs. 40,000/- was financed and Rs. 14,400/- was shown as finance charges which together came to Rs. 54,400/- as a total due against truck bearing registration No. BR 13 H 2292. From the payments schedule at the agreement if also transpires that the accused had to pay 24 installments. The claim made in the complaint petition that the accused was to pay Rs. 2,75,000/- in discharge of legal debt, is not supported by the hire purchase agreement brought on record (Ext.-C). The document on record goes to show that Rs. 40,000/- was financed to the accused and Rs. 14,400/- was to be imposed as hire charges with respect to truck No. BR 13 H 2292. 2,75,000/- in discharge of legal debt, is not supported by the hire purchase agreement brought on record (Ext.-C). The document on record goes to show that Rs. 40,000/- was financed to the accused and Rs. 14,400/- was to be imposed as hire charges with respect to truck No. BR 13 H 2292. Ext.- A series are money receipts, which go to show that the payments were made by the accused. The said receipts are admitted and were marked without any objection on behalf of the complainant, RW. 4- complainant has also admitted to have taken possession of the truck from the accused and sold the same. (6) LEARNED court below took notice of the provisions of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides for rebuttable presumption of issuance of cheque for consideration. He found that in the instant case the presumption of issuance of cheque by the accused has been rebutted by the accused and the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt as to how a cheque of Rs. 2,75,000/- was issued when against the truck No. BR 13 H 2292 his due was only Rs, 54,400/-. LEARNED court below, on that basis, recorded the finding that the complainant failed to substantiate the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the accused-opposite party. LEARNED court below, thus, acquitted the accused of the said charge. In this petition the impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that learned court below has not properly appreciated evidence on record and has wrongly acquitted the accused-opposite party. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that once a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (hereinafter to be referred as the said Act), the Court has to presume in favour of the complainant that it is for consideration and is genuine document. The Court has to draw such presumption under the said rule of evidence, contained in Section 118 of the said Act. The Court has to draw such presumption under the said rule of evidence, contained in Section 118 of the said Act. Learned counsel also referred to and relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kumar Exports v. M/s Sharma Carpets reported in (2009)2 SCC 513 : (2009(3) AIR Jha R 695), and submitted that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the said Act will live, exist and survive and shall end only when the contrary is proved by the accused that the cheque was not issued for consideration and in discharge of any debt or liability. Bare denial of passing of consideration and existence of debt, apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something, which is probable, has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. Learned counsel also made reference of the decision of the Apex Court in M/s M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. M/s. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. reported in (2002) 1SCC 234: ( AIR 2002 SC 182 ), which was earlier decision on the said point. (7) HAVING heard learned counsel we perused the impugned judgment. We find that learned trial court has thoroughly discussed the evidences and came to the conclusion that the complainant has alleged that the cheque was issued in discharge of part debt/liability/hire charge of truck bearing registration No. BR 13 H 2292 but the amount of loan given to the accused has not been mentioned in the complaint petition. However, it appears from the schedule appended to the hire purchase agreement - Ext. C that Rs. 40,000/- was financed and Rs. 14,400/- was shown as finance charges which in total comes to Rs. 54,400/-. The cheque of Rs. 2,75,000/- said to be issued in discharge of legal debt in respect of hire charge of truck No. BR 13 H 2292 has no compactibility. Learned court has further held after scrutiny of the money receipts - Ext.- A series, that the payments were made by the accused and money receipts - Exts. A/2 to A/10 and A/11 to A/20 were issued by the complainant, the said receipts were marked as Exhibits without any objection from the complainant. Learned court has further held after scrutiny of the money receipts - Ext.- A series, that the payments were made by the accused and money receipts - Exts. A/2 to A/10 and A/11 to A/20 were issued by the complainant, the said receipts were marked as Exhibits without any objection from the complainant. The proprietor of the complainant-Firm P.W. 4 Raj Kumar Dhanuka has also admitted that he has taken possession of the truck from the accused and sold to some other person and the sale proceeds was adjusted towards the balance of the amount financed to the accused. Learned trial court has further found that writing and signature on the cheque are in two different inks and that goes to support the case of the complainant that the blank cheque was given as a collateral security, at the time of executing agreement and the same was later on filled up putting an arbitrary amount by the complainant. The complainant also tried to introduce a new case at a subsequent stage that the petitioner stood as a guarantor of one Mohsin Khan and he is also liable for the same. (8) IT has been also held by learned court below that the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the said Act is rebuttable and the said presumption stood rebutted by evidence on record. The complainant, thereafter, has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as to how a cheque of Rs. 2,75,000/- was issued against hire purchase amount along with finance charge of Rs. 54,400/-. Learned court below held that the accused has not been found guilty of the charge. We find that the judgment of learned trial court is well discussed and supported by reasons based on materials/evidences on record. Learned court below has thoroughly considered the oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by both the parties and has rightly held that presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the said Act stood re: butted by legal evidences, particularly by the hire purchase agreement and the money receipts as well as admission of the proprietor of the firm to that regard and the burden was shifted on the complainant to prove his case, beyond all reasonable doubts but the complainant failed to substantiate the said charge, against the accused-opposite party. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case I the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Kumar Exports and M.M.T.C. Ltd.' (Supra) has no application in the instant case. (9) IT is well established that in appeal against acquittal if two views are possible, the appellate court should not interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the trial court, if the finding reached by the Trial Judge is not unreasonable. Reference has been made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 308 . In the instant case we find that the finding of the learned trial court is well- founded legal and proper. The evidences and material on record lead to no other conclusion than what has been, arrived at by learned trial Court. (10) WE, therefore, find no ground made out to grant special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.