JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: - The present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 16.4.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) has been dismissed and the respondent-accused has been acquitted of the offence. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are that as per allegations of the petitioner, Hakam Singh-respondent borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant at Bhawanigarh. To discharge his liability, accused issued cheque bearing No.105987 dated 18.3.2010 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The cheque on its presentation to the bank got dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and the accused failed to make payment within the stipulated period of 15 days, after receipt of notice of demand. 3. To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as a witness and exhibited on record documents namely, cheque Ex. C-1, Memo Ex. C- 2, legal notice Ex. C-3 and postal receipt Ex. C-4. 4. The statement of the accused was recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and pleaded his innocence and false implication. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment passed by the learned trial Court is erroneous and the Court has misled itself in recording a finding that the petitioner has failed to discharge the onus to prove that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. It is further submitted that as the respondent admitted his signatures on the cheque, a presumption under Section 118 of the Act was available in favour of the petitioner according to which the petitioner being the holder of the cheque received the negotiable instrument for a consideration. It is further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly and illegally taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has not shown the loan given to the respondent in his income tax return and for that reason he is unable to prove his case. 6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and appraising the evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded its observations in para 10 of the judgment impugned. 6. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and appraising the evidence on record, the learned trial Court recorded its observations in para 10 of the judgment impugned. A relevant extract from para 10 of the judgment reads as quoted thus:- “After hearing rival submissions and going through the record of the file, it is made out that as per the case of complainant, accused had borrowed a loan of Rs. One lac from him and in order to repay the loan, he issued the cheque in question, but surprisingly, neither in the complaint nor in the evidence, the complainant has mentioned the date when the alleged loan was taken by the accused and after how much time, he was to return the loan whether it was to be returned with interest or without interest. Nothing is disclosed in the complaint. Secondly, no document was executed at the time of giving alleged loan nor any receipt was taken by the complainant. The complainant has admitted in his cross examination that the accused is not known to him. He gave the amount to him at the instance of Naresh Kumar who is alleged to be his friend, but this version of the complainant does not seem convincing because it is not possible that a person can lend Rs. One lac to a person who is even not known to him and that too without taking any receipt or taking any security. Further more, regarding the source of alleged loan, the complainant has stated that Rs. 50,000/- were lying at his home and the remaining amount was borrowed by him from his friend. This version also does not seem to be plausible because it cannot be believed that a person can give a loan of Rs. One lac to an unknown person, that too, after borrowing it from some other person. It is also the case of the complainant that he borrowed money from Naresh Kumar for the purpose of lending it to the accused. He has admitted that brother of Naresh Kumar is running agency of Hero Honda motorcycle and Naresh Kumar is also working in that agency. He also admitted in his cross examination that Naresh Kumar has also accompanied him who is standing outside the Court room. He has admitted that brother of Naresh Kumar is running agency of Hero Honda motorcycle and Naresh Kumar is also working in that agency. He also admitted in his cross examination that Naresh Kumar has also accompanied him who is standing outside the Court room. From the above circumstances, it is made out that the story put forth by the complainant regarding giving loan to the accused does not seem convincing.” 8. Counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the finding of the trial Court that the petitioner admitted in his cross examination that the accused was not known to him. The petitioner further deposed that he gave amount to the accused at the instance of Naresh Kumar, a friend of the petitioner. Naresh Kumar was not examined during trial. The petitioner could not explain the reason for non-examination of Naresh Kumar despite the fact that the petitioner admitted during his cross examination that Naresh Kumar had accompanied him to the Court and was standing outside the Court room during cross examination of the petitioner. The learned trial Court has rightly held that it is difficult to believe that the petitioner lent an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent without knowing him and that too without getting a document executed much less getting a security for repayment of loan. Naresh Kumar, the best witness in this case was withheld despite being available for examination, which is a strong circumstance to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner. The respondent-accused raised a specific plea that blank cheque under his signatures was issued to an agency of Hero Honda Motorcycle, which is being run by brother of Naresh Kumar and Naresh Kumar is also working in that agency. In these circumstances, examination of Naresh Kumar by the petitioner would have assumed greater significance. The petitioner failed to lead cogent and convincing evidence on record that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from him and the cheque in question, was issued in discharge of that liability to repay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The allegations set out in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant before the Court, do not indicate date, month and year of giving loan to the respondent much less the terms and conditions of the said loan and the date for its repayment. 9. 1,00,000/-. The allegations set out in the complaint as well as in the statement of the complainant before the Court, do not indicate date, month and year of giving loan to the respondent much less the terms and conditions of the said loan and the date for its repayment. 9. The scope of interference in judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is different from the one while examining a case of conviction. The findings recorded by the trial Court have a strong foundation and are based on correct appreciation of the factual controversy. In order to interfere in such findings of trial Court, there must be material on record to come to a definite conclusion that finding of the trial Court is perverse. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, there is no material on record to hold that the findings of the trial Court are erroneous much less perverse warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I stand fortified in my observations from a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in C. Antony vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair, 2002 (4)RCR (Criminal) 750. There is no gainsaying that the judgment in C.Antony’s case (supra) is tailor-made for the present case. 11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the petition is dismissed in limine. --------0.B.S.0------------