JUDGMENT Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- CRM No.33011 of 2013 Allowed as prayed. Annexure P-1 is taken on record subject to just exceptions. CRM No. A-254-MA of 2013 1. The present appeal lays challenge to judgment dated 29.01.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad whereby the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) filed by the appellant has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that Veerpal claiming himself to be proprietor of the petitioner firm filed a complaint on the allegations that accused M/s Davinder and Associates, a proprietorship firm of D.S.Rawat entered into an agreement for levelling the grounds at their work site and for that purpose accused hired a tractor from the complainant. As per terms and conditions of the agreement, the accused had to incur charges of maintenance and damage to the tractor. While working on the site at village Tunav, Pauri Garhwal, the tractor met with an accident and got totally damaged. To indemnify loss caused to the complainant, the accused issued cheque bearing No. 000092 dated 20.3.2009 for Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, NAC Mani Majra, Chandigarh. The cheque on its presentation to the bank for encashment got dishonoured vide Memo dated 27.5.2009 on the ground “payment stopped by drawer”. The accused failed to make payment of the cheque amount despite receipt of legal notice. 3. The trial Court recorded evidence of the complainant, statement of the accused under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. and after hearing counsel for the parties, while relying upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Krishna Janardhan Bhatt vs. Dattarraya G. Hegde, [2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 631] : 2008 AIR SC 1325, came to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove guilt of the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and as a result, the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence charged against him. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed a grave error and illegality in recording finding against the complainant. The judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to set aside. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the case file. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court committed a grave error and illegality in recording finding against the complainant. The judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to set aside. 6. I have heard counsel for the appellant and gone through the case file. 7. A perusal of the judgment impugned reveals that the reasons which weighed in the mind of the trial court for recording finding against the appellant are incorporated in para 12. A relevant extract from para 12 reads as follows:- “Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant is alleging the existence of a legally recoverable debt on the ground that the cheque in question was given by the accused to him to indemnify the loss caused to the tractor by the acts of the accused. However, the complainant has failed to prove the fact that the tractor in question was ever owned by him and has further failed to prove the fact that the same was handed over by him to the accused. He has further failed to prove the fact that damage to the tractor was caused by the acts of the accused and the accused handed over the cheque in question to him as a discharge of his liability. As such since a basic ingredient of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act being existence of a legally recoverable debt has not been proved in the present case, this court is of the opinion that the accused deserves to be acquitted of all charges levelled against him since the complainant has failed to discharge his burden of proof and the accused has been able to rebut the existence of presumption, if any against him from the cross examination of the complainant till the requisite level of proof being preponderance of probabilities.” 8. Counsel for the appellant fails to point out if the findings recorded by the trial court are inconsistent with the facts on record or these are based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. Counsel for the appellant fails to point out if the findings recorded by the trial court are inconsistent with the facts on record or these are based on misreading or mis-appreciation of evidence. The complainant failed to adduce cogent and convincing evidence to substantiate averments set out in the complaint that there was an agreement between the complainant and the accused for hiring a tractor or a tractor belonging to the complainant company was assigned for levelling the site of the accused and the said tractor got damaged. The complaint does not make reference to the particulars of the tractor sent for levelling the site. The complainant failed to produce registration certificate of the said tractor before the Court despite directions issued in this regard. However, the petitioner by filing CRM No. 33011 of 2013 placed on record registration certificate of one tractor bearing No. HR 51 T 1677 but this registration certificate cannot be connected with the allegations of the complaint as the complaint does not contain the particulars of the tractor. I do not find any error much less illegality in the finding recorded by the trial Court both on legal and factual aspect of the matter. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 9. In the result the petition is dismissed in limine. --------0.B.S.0------------