JUDGMENT J. K. Maheshwari, J.:- Shri Virendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Rakesh Vyas, learned counsel for respondent. 2. This petition under section 378(4) of Criminal Procedure Code has been filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 7-9-2012 passed by the judicial Magistrate First Class, Ujjain in Criminal Case No. 1531/2011 rejecting the complaint filed by the applicant under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned trial Court recorded the finding that the cheque of Rs. four lakhs which was submitted by the applicant against the non-applicant and the same was dishonoured on the note of insufficient fund. The Court is observed that the complainant was unable to prove that from where he has received such an amount of Rs. four lakhs which was given on loan to non-applicant/accused. In cross-examination, it is admitted by him that the said amount was taken from Jaswant but statement of Jaswant has not been recorded in the Court. More so, it is admitted by him that he is not known Jaswant, Considering the aforesaid and looking to the fact that the applicant himself was not having sufficient fund to advance the loan, however, cannot be said that the cheque was given in discharge of liability of legally recoverable dues. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that non-applicant/accused has not submitted any reply to the notice and after admitting the signature on the cheque and other particulars of the cheque taking such defence and to reject the private complaint by the trial Court is unsustainable of law, however, allowing this petition leave to appeal may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contends that complainant was residing at their home and he was nurtured in their family. When in discharge of liability of loan of a scooter, the cheque was given by the complainant to said place and he has one copy of the cheque and later on amount of Rs. four lakhs after dishonouring the same filed complaint case. In such circumstances, trial Court has rightly been passed the order rejecting the complaint. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the defence of the non-applicant/accused and further looking to the fact that applicant/complainant was Electrician earning Rs. 200 to 300/- per day which monthly comes to Rs. In such circumstances, trial Court has rightly been passed the order rejecting the complaint. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the defence of the non-applicant/accused and further looking to the fact that applicant/complainant was Electrician earning Rs. 200 to 300/- per day which monthly comes to Rs. 7,000/-, however, in such a case, the ground taken by trial Court to reject the private complaint on account of dishonouring of cheque of Rs. four lakh appears to be just. In such circumstances, the complainant is to prove the same by leading the evidence that he was having sufficient fund to advance the loan but non-applicant/accused has failed to do so, in absence thereof, it would not fall within the purview of legally recoverable dues. On the contrary, it is said by the complainant that he has taken amount from one Jaswant but he himself not known to said Jaswant as admitted by him in cross-examination. Thus, accepting the defence taken by the accused and on rebuttal of the presumption made in view of the said defence, the order rejecting the private complaint has rightly been passed by the trial Court which do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting any interference. In such circumstances, the leave to appeal is hereby refused. 6. Accordingly, this petition seeking leave to appeal stands dismissed. Petition dismissed.