JUDGMENT & ORDER : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment dated 11.08.2009 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Case No.751/2005, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’) . 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a complaint before the trial court with the allegation that on his asking the respondent got sold his agriculture land and out of the total consideration amount he kept Rs.88,000/- with him and assured him that the same money is a loan, which he will pay within some time. It is further alleged that after some time when the appellant demanded money from the respondent, he gave him a cheque of Rs.88,000/- and when the appellant presented the said cheque for encashment in the concerned bank, the same was returned with the remarks that “fund insufficient”. It is further alleged that thereafter, the appellant sent a notice to the respondent, which was received by him on 30.06.2015 but despite that he had not returned the loan amount and ultimately refused to repay the same. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the trial court took cognizance and framed charges against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 4. During the course of the trial, the appellant got examined himself as prosecution witness and also got exhibited certain documents. In defence, the respondent also gave his evidence and got exhibited certain documents. 5. The trial court, after pondering over the evidence available on record, acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant has sufficiently proved before the trial court that the respondent gave him a cheque of Rs.88,000/- against a legally enforceable debt, however, the same was presented by the appellant in the concerned bank, but when the same was not realised then the appellant sent a notice under Section 138 of NI Act to the respondent, which was duly served upon him but despite that he did not pay the money. It is contended that the trial court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant in support of his complaint in right perspective and illegally held that the appellant has failed to prove that the respondent gave him a cheque of Rs.88,000/- against a legally enforceable debt. It is contended that from the evidence available on record, it is clearly proved that the respondent is guilty of commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and the finding recorded by the trial court while acquitting the accused respondent are contrary to the evidence available on record and, therefore, the same are perverse. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, prayed that it is a fit case wherein leave be granted to the appellant to file appeal against the impugned judgment. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the appellant has failed to prove before the trial court that the cheque in question was issued by the respondent against a legally enforceable debt, therefore, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused respondent vide impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent has also invited attention towards the defence evidence produce before the trial court and submitted that from the documents produced by the respondent in defence, it is clear that the cheque in question handed over to the appellant by the respondent was not against a legally enforceable debt and the appellant has misused the said cheque given to him for the purpose of purchasing his agriculture land. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully scrutinized the record. 9. In the complaint the appellant has came out with a case that on his asking the respondent got sold his agriculture land and out of the total sale consideration, he kept Rs.88,000/- with him as loan and assured the appellant that he will repay the same. It is further alleged that when the appellant asked for repaying the loan to the respondent, he handed over a cheque of Rs.88,000/- to him, which was not released and returned with a remark that “fund insufficient”. 10. It is further alleged that when the appellant asked for repaying the loan to the respondent, he handed over a cheque of Rs.88,000/- to him, which was not released and returned with a remark that “fund insufficient”. 10. The appellant also filed an affidavit in evidence before the trial court while stating the same facts as stated in the complaint, however, during the course of cross-examination, he stated that he entered into an agreement with the respondent for selling his agriculture land, though, in the complaint he stated that the respondent got sold his agriculture land to somebody else. In the cross-examination, the appellant denied the execution of any power of attorney (Exhibit-D/2) by him and his family members in favour of one Mustak, though, admitted his thumb impression on power of attorney (Exhibit-D/2) and also admitted the thumb impressions of his brother and sister. The appellant further admitted that Mustak sold the agriculture lands of his and his family members through registered sale-deed (Exhibit-D/3). At the same time, the appellant also admitted the registered notice (Exhibit-D/4) sent by his advocate, however, stated that he don’t know why his advocate sent notice to the respondent. During the cross-examination, the appellant further admitted that he sold his agriculture land to the respondent but at the same time, he also stated that the respondent got sold his land to somebody else. 11. The respondent has came out with a defence that, he agreed to purchase the lands of appellant and his brother and sister through agreement to sale and in lieu of that he gave him some money in cash and remaining money was given to him through cheque in question, however, the appellant and his family members in contravention of the terms of agreement to sale executed a power of attorney in favour of one Mustak, who sold the said agriculture land to Savitri and when the respondent asked for returning the money paid by him to the appellant and his family members in return the appellant filed this false complaint against him. In defence, the respondent got exhibited several documents such as agreement to sale, executed by the appellant and his family members in his favour; power of attorney, executed by the appellant and his family members in favour of one Mustak; sale-deed, executed by Mustak in favour of others and the notice sent by the appellant to the respondent through his advocate. 12. The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced by the appellant as well as the evidence produced by the respondent in defence, has held that the appellant has failed to prove that the cheque in question is given to him by the respondent against any legally enforceable debt and the evidence produced by the respondent are more trustworthy. 13. After carefully scrutinizing the record and particularly the evidence of the appellant as well as the respondent, I have no hesitation in holding that the appellant has miserably failed to prove before the trial court that the cheque in question was given to him by the respondent was against any legally enforceable debt, hence, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned judgment while acquitting the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In view of the above discussions, no case for grant of leave to the appellant to file appeal against the impugned judgment is made out. Consequently, this leave to appeal is dismissed. Leave to appeal dismissed.