JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - CRM No.33 of 2015 Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay of 46 days in filing the application seeking leave to appeal, is condoned. CRM No.A-14-MA of 2015 1. Applicant-Satya Narain has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Sadhu Ram, challenging the judgment dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwani, whereby the complaint filed by the applicant was dismissed and accusedrespondent was acquitted. 2. As per the record, the complainant Satya Narain filed complaint against Sadhu Ram under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per complainant’s version, accused having friendly relations with him, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- on 28.01.2007 from complainant for domestic purpose and he promised to return that amount immediately. In view of the promise to return money, accused issued a cheque No.0134724 dated 27.01.2007 for Rs.1,70,000/- drawn at Canara Bank. After having received the cheque, complainant presented the same in Punjab National Bank on 27.01.2007 but on presentation, the cheque was dishonoured with the remarks of ‘insufficient funds’. It is further the case of the complainant that thereafter accused assured him for the repayment and on his request, he again presented the cheque on 14.05.2007 which was again dishonoured with the same remarks. Then legal notice was served upon the accused. When the payment was not made, then the complaint was filed. 3. On the basis of the evidence, learned CJM, Bhiwani, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 23.08.2014. 4. The perusal of the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned CJM, Bhiwani shows that the judgment is as per evidence and law. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant argued that cheating has been done by the accusedrespondent but the perusal of the record shows that the complaint was filed only under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not under Section 420 IPC. Secondly, even in the complaint, there are no such allegations regarding cheating. The perusal of the complaint itself shows that loan was given on 28.01.2007 whereas the cheque was issued on 27.01.2007 and it was presented before the bank even before giving of loan of Rs.1,70,000/- to the accused. Therefore, from the complaint itself, it is clear that the cheque in question was not for discharging any existing liability. The perusal of the complaint itself shows that loan was given on 28.01.2007 whereas the cheque was issued on 27.01.2007 and it was presented before the bank even before giving of loan of Rs.1,70,000/- to the accused. Therefore, from the complaint itself, it is clear that the cheque in question was not for discharging any existing liability. Rather, the liability arose on 28.01.2007. There is also no averment in the complaint that the accused issued the cheque on later date by putting the date 27.01.2007. Otherwise also, the cheque is of 27.01.2007 and it was presented on the same day for encashment whereas the loan, as per complainant’s version, has been given on the next date i.e. on 28.01.2007. 5. In view of the above discussion, I find that judgment dated 23.08.2014 passed by learned CJM, Bhiwani, is correct, as per law and evidence. 6. Keeping in view above facts and circumstances, I find that no ground is made out to grant permission for leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed. ———————