ORDER 1. By means of filing the present application for leave to appeal under section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as “the Code”), the complainant/applicant has assailed the judgment of acquittal of respondent passed by the learned Judl. Magistrate Ist Class, Chhindwara (M.P.) in Criminal Case No. 2723/2008 decided on 22.2.2012. By the judgment under challenge, learned JMFC has acquitted the accused from the charge of offence punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts in nutshell are that the complainant has purchased a Television from respondent on the assurance that the company bears a good reputation in market. The complainant has taken a loan from the Department and gave Cheque No.3357 of Rs.24,990/- to the respondent and respondent assured him that he will give the Television of Sharp Company Model No.25A-51, but it is alleged that respondent has given the Television of price of Rs.13,590/- on 9.8.2000 and thereby a cheating of Rs.9,410/- was made by the respondent and thereby he committed offence under section 420 of IPC, hence complaint was filed with a prayer to convict the respondent. 3. After taking cognizance, notice was issued to the respondent. After framing of charge and recording of evidence learned trial Court appreciated the evidence on record and recorded impugned judgment of acquittal of the respondent, against which this application for leave to appeal has been filed by the complainant. 4. None appeared for the petitioner on date of hearing i.e. on 26.4.16, but instead of dismissing the petition for want of prosecution, it is going to be decided on its merits. 5. It is averred in the memo of petition that the judgment and findings recorded by learned Court below are perverse and bad in law, therefore, liable to be set aside. It is also averred that applicant and his witnesses have categorically deposed regarding cheating by the respondent through oral as well as documentary evidence even though the case was rejected and the respondent was acquitted, hence,it is prayed that the judgment of acquittal may be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that judgment of acquittal is based on proper findings and no interference is called for in this petition seeking leave to appeal. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/accused has submitted that judgment of acquittal is based on proper findings and no interference is called for in this petition seeking leave to appeal. The petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having perused the petition memo, as well as having heard learned counsel for the respondent and after perusal of available record, I find that petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of entire available evidence, on the basis of series of various transactions took place between the complainant and the accused, found that after purchasing a T.V. of Rs.24,990/- on 3.8.2000, there was no need to purchase another T.V., hence entire transaction appears to be suspicious. Learned trial Court came to the conclusion that from the perusal of the documents submitted, it is shown that the complainant had taken loan from the Bank to purchase T.V. of Rs.24,990/- whereupon the Bank had directly issued a cheque of due amount in favour of the accused with regard to the said T.V., but later, another T.V. was purchased of less amount of Rs.13,590/- on 9.8.2000. Thus, a dispute has arisen with respect to the different in the sale amount of both the televisions. Learned trial Court was also of the opinion that the complainant has not come before the Court with the clean intentions, it is shown that he has filed this complaint to challenge the finally disposed of facts of the civil suits pending earlier and with the tactics to build pressure upon the accused through this complaint. In addition, it is also pointed out that this complaint has been presented at a very late stage. Finally, learned trial Court held that all the aforementioned facts pointed out towards a reasonable doubt, and benefits will go to the accused as it has not been proved by the petitioner that the accused has committed any fraud with the complainant regarding the payment of price of the television set. 9. Findings of learned trial Court are based on cogent evidence, hence impugned judgment dated 22.2.12 does not require any interference. 10. 9. Findings of learned trial Court are based on cogent evidence, hence impugned judgment dated 22.2.12 does not require any interference. 10. The High Court can consider any special feature in a particular case and cannot ignore the effect which the granting of leave to appeal without due discrimination may have on the principles of normal presumption of innocence of the accused in our criminal law which has been further reinforced and strengthened by the order of acquittal by the trial Court. Accordingly, unless the High Court is satisfied, considered in the light above, about some indications or error in a judgment of acquittal, the High Court may not grant leave. 11. It is a well settled principle of law that unless the judgment of acquittal is palpably wrong and grossly unreasonable, interference in the application for leave to file appeal is not called for. 12. Hence this application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed.