Judgment Jawad Rahim, J. 1. The appeal is by the complainant against the acquittal of the respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Heard. 3. From what learned Counsel for the appellant has adverted to and also from the records, the following facts emerge. The appellant-T.T. Naveen Kumar sought prosecution of B. Somegowda-respondent herein on the allegation that for valuable consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-received, the respondent-accused issued cheque No.660519 dated 14.6.2001. The cheque, on presentation to the Bank was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Notice issued demanding payment of the amount covered under the cheque on 18.6.2001 was received by the accused, but he failed to comply. During the trial, accused entered appearance and denied the liability. He categorically averred that the complainant had received from him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-in the year 1998 and thereafter repaid the same. The cheque issued by him was not in relation to any transaction of borrowing but it related to purchase of a site. Since the complainant had not honoured his undertaking to sell the property, he was not liable to pay any amount. 4. The learned Trial Judge noticed from the evidence two material documents – Exhibit. P6-an agreement produced by the complainant to show that the respondent-accused had issued the impugned cheque on 14.6.2001 towards discharge of the liability whereas Exhibit.D1 was another agreement dated 31.3.1998 between the accused and the complainant evidencing transaction between them for sale of a site. The said agreement dated 31.3.1998 shows that the complainant had received Rs. 2,00,000/-from the accused as consideration for selling a site which he did not do, therefore the accused was entitled to recover Rs. 2,00,000/-from the complainant. 5. Comparing of these documents, the learned trial Judge opined that the transaction was of civil nature and the accused had established that the complainant had received Rs. 2,00,000/-which he was bound to repay. 6. The second aspect noticed by the trial Court is that the cheque in possession of the complainant was not issued in respect of any debt or legal liability. The finding recorded by the trial Court is based on the material on record and no different view could be taken. 7. In this view, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and acquittal of the respondent is affirmed.