JUDGMENT 1. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 04th October, 2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge(S.D.) & Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in the Complaint No.506/2003, whereby the trial court has acquitted the respondents (original accused) from the charges levelled against them under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). 2. The short facts of the case of the appellant-complainant before the trial court were that the complainant had good relations with one Shri Suresh Khandelwal, who also happened to be the friend of the accused-respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal. In the month of March, 2002, the accused-respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal came to the residence of the complainant along with said Suresh Khandelwal and requested the complainant to give loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- which he needed for his business purposes. The complainant considering his good relations with Suresh Khandelwal gave a loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the said accused respondent No.2 Shankar Lal Khandelwal. According to the complainant, the said accused Shankal Lal Khandelwal thereafter gave three cheques each of Rs. 50,000/- bearing Nos. 046019 dated 5.4.2002, 046020 dated 10.4.2002 and 046021 dated 15.4.2002 of Allahabad Bank, putting his signatures thereon and assured the complainant that the said cheques would be honoured. The complainant thereafter presented the said three cheques on 4.6.2002, however, the said cheques were returned by the Bank dishonored with the remark of 'stop payment'. The complainant thereafter sent a notice dated 19.6.2002 to the accused through his counsel, which was replied by the accused through their counsel. Since the accused did not make payment of the said cheques within the prescribed time limit, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court against the accused-respondents under section 138 of the said Act. The complainant thereafter sent a notice dated 19.6.2002 to the accused through his counsel, which was replied by the accused through their counsel. Since the accused did not make payment of the said cheques within the prescribed time limit, the complainant filed the complaint before the trial court against the accused-respondents under section 138 of the said Act. The complainant had examined himself as PW-1 and after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code by the trial court, the accused also examined himself as DW-1 and his brother Tikam Khandelwal as DW-2 in support of his defence that no such cheques were issued by him towards any debt or liability, and that the complainant had misused the said cheques which were lost, and for which he had also informed the concerned-Bank for stopping the payment. 3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted the respondents-accused from the charges levelled against them vide impugned judgment and order, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant. 4. It has been sought to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Nikhil Simlote for the appellant that the respondent No.2-accused had admitted his signatures on the cheques in question and therefore a presumption is required to be raised that the said cheques were issued by him towards the discharge of his debt of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Relying upon the documents annexed to the appeal, he has submitted that admittedly the accused had not lodged any complaint as regards the loss of his cheques and that the accused having admitted his close relationship with the said Suresh Khandelwal in his presence the complainant had given money to the accused, the trial court was required to raise the presumption against the accused in view of sections 118 and 139 of the said Act. 5. The learned Sr. counsel Mr.MM Ranjan for the respondent-accused, however supporting the findings of the trial court recorded in the impugned judgment, submitted that the accused, right from the beginning, had denied to have gone to the place of the complainant or borrowed the money or issued any cheques in question. 5. The learned Sr. counsel Mr.MM Ranjan for the respondent-accused, however supporting the findings of the trial court recorded in the impugned judgment, submitted that the accused, right from the beginning, had denied to have gone to the place of the complainant or borrowed the money or issued any cheques in question. On the contrary, as admitted by the complainant himself that the complainant did not know the accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal and had seen him for the first time in the court, as observed by the trial court in the judgment, and therefore the whole story of the complainant, of his lending of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused stands nullified from his own deposition. He also submitted that the accused had duly rebutted the presumptions by examining himself and his brother Tikam Khandelwal and proved that the said cheques were not given to the complainant for discharging any debt or liability. The said cheques were stolen from his office and were misused by the complainant. According to Mr. Ranjan, the trial court has rightly observed that the complainant had failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt and rightly acquitted the accused from the charge levelled against him. 6. At the outset, it is required to be mentioned that while granting leave to appeal to the appellant, the record of the case was called for from the trial court, however, as per the letter received from the trial court, the record of the case was already weeded out on 13.4.2011 by the trial court and therefore the same was not made available to this court. The court therefore vide order dated 18.2.2011 had directed the appellant to submit records which are available with him and accordingly the learned counsel for the appellant had submitted some of the documents containing the depositions and the copies of the cheques in question and other documents. However, it is pertinent to note that while submitting the copies of depositions, the appellant and his counsel have not supplied the entire set of depositions inasmuch as the cross-examination in full of the complainant and the examination in chief in full of the accused have not been submitted. Under the circumstances, the court has perused the incomplete set of depositions and relied upon the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 7. Under the circumstances, the court has perused the incomplete set of depositions and relied upon the findings recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and to the documents on record, it emerges that the appellant-complainant had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he had given Rs. 1,50,000/- to Shri Suresh Khandelwal and that he had never met accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal prior to coming to the court. The said defence was also raised by the accused while giving reply to the notice served by the complainant upon him prior to filing of the complainant. Since the very basis of the case of the complainant that the complainant had advanced Rs. 1,50,000/- to the accused Shankar Lal as he happened to be the friend of Suresh Khandelwal, gets demolished from his own evidence before the court. As against that the accused by examining himself and his brother Tikam Khandelwal has been able to show that the said cheques were never issued in favour of the complainant nor there was any debt or liability created in favour of the complainant, for which such cheques could have been issued. It is true that as per the section 139 of the said Act, a presumption is required to be raised, unless the contrary is proved that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to under section 138 of the said Act for the discharge in whole or part or any debt or other liability. However, The said presumption has been duly rebutted by the accused by proving that there was no legal debt or liability created by him and hence there was no question of discharging the same by issuing the cheques in question. It is also true that the accused had not lodged any complaint regarding the loss of cheques in question, however,it is pertinent to note that the accused had already informed the concerned Bank immediately for stopping the payment, even prior to the presentation of the said cheques allegedly issued by the accused. It is also true that the accused had not lodged any complaint regarding the loss of cheques in question, however,it is pertinent to note that the accused had already informed the concerned Bank immediately for stopping the payment, even prior to the presentation of the said cheques allegedly issued by the accused. Merely because the complaint was not lodged by the respondent accused towards the loss of his cheques, it could not be said that the said cheques were issued by the respondent-accused to the appellant-complainant towards the discharge of his legal debt, more particularly when the appellant-complainant had miserably failed to prove that the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was given by the appellant to the respondent No.2 in the year 2002 at the instance of Shri Suresh Khandelwal. As stated earlier, even as per the case of the appellant, the said amount was given to Shri Suresh Khandelwal and he did not know the accused Shankar Lal Khandelwal prior to coming to the court. Under the Circumstances, the trial court has rightly held that the appellant-complainant had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the said cheques were issued by the respondent-accused towards the discharge of his debt or liability. 8. In that view of the matter, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and order passed by the trial court, which would call for any interference of this court. 9. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******