JUDGMENT : N.K. Gupta, J. Heard on admission. The applicant has preferred the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24.2.2010 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Seoni, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charge of offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The facts of the case, in short, are that the applicant has preferred a complaint before the trial Court that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- was to be given to the applicant by the respondent and, therefore, he gave a cheque dated 8.1.2005. When the cheque was deposited in the Bank of Maharashtra, it was dishonoured due to unavailability of funds. A notice of demand was given but, within the stipulated period, no demand has been made and, therefore, the complaint was filed. 2. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he took a sum of Rs. 20,000/- from the applicant, which was returned to him. A blank cheque was given for the purpose of security and thereafter, the applicant filled up the amount and his name and also date of issuance on his own and no sum of Rs. 75,000/- was due towards the respondent. In defence, Rajesh Gupta (D.W.1), Omprakash Tiwari (D.W.2), J.K. Pagare (D.W.3) and handwriting expert Yogita Singh (D.W.1-A) were examined. 3. The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the respondent from the charge of offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. After considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the applicant and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the applicant could not prove his case. He has stated that he gave a sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent, 10 days prior to the issuance of cheque and, thereafter, cheque was given on 8.1.2005, whereas handwriting expert Yogita Singh has stated that hand writing on the cheque relating to signature of the respondent was different and the remaining text of cheque including the date of cheque was filled up thereafter. There was a lot of difference in the age of such handwriting. It was surprising that if the respondent requires a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for any specific purpose then, how he could return the same within 10 days. Looking to his Bank account, he did not keep more than Rs. 5,000/- in those 5 years. There was a lot of difference in the age of such handwriting. It was surprising that if the respondent requires a sum of Rs. 75,000/- for any specific purpose then, how he could return the same within 10 days. Looking to his Bank account, he did not keep more than Rs. 5,000/- in those 5 years. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the complainant could not be believed. On the other hand, the respondent has examined himself as a witness and also examined Shri J.K. Pagare (D.W.3) and Rajendra Gupta (D.W. 1) to show that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was given by the applicant to the respondent and the same was returned but, a blank cheque obtained by the applicant was not returned back to the respondent. Under such circumstances, looking to the manipulation in the cheque and the statements of defence witnesses as well as the handwriting expert, it would be apparent that the respondent never issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- to the applicant and, therefore, the applicant was not entitled to that amount of Rs. 75,000/- from the respondent and, therefore, if cheque was dishonoured then, certainly no offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the respondent. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the learned J.M.F.C. has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of aforesaid offences. There is no reason by which appeal filed by the applicant may be accepted. Hence, if leave is granted, it will be of no use. Under such circumstances, the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information.