ORDER : Vijay Bishnoi, J. The matter comes up for consideration of application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 34 days in filing this criminal leave to appeal. 2. It is contended in the petition that inadvertently the petitioner had preferred a revision petition before the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan against the order dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in case No.20/2012 whereby while dismissing the complaint of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act filed against the respondent No.1 it has acquitted respondent No.1 from the said charges. It is also contended that the said appeal was dismissed as not pressed by the District Judge, Jodhpur Metropolitan on 17.12.2012, therefore, the petitioner has filed this leave to appeal against the order of the trial court on 21.12.2012. It is also contended that delay in filing this leave to appeal is bona fide, therefore, the same may be condoned. No reply to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 3. Having considered the avernments made in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the delay in filing this leave to appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 4. With the Consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.1 while contending that he gave him a cheque of Rs.86,500/- on 19.11.2007, however, when the said cheque was presented in the concerned bank, it was not honoured on account of insufficient fund. It is also contended that a notice was served upon the respondent No.1, but, despite service of the said notice, the respondent No.1 did not make the payment of Rs. 86,500/-. It is also contended that a notice was served upon the respondent No.1, but, despite service of the said notice, the respondent No.1 did not make the payment of Rs. 86,500/-. It is alleged in the complaint that the said cheque of Rs.86,500/- was given by the respondent No.1 to the petitioner for the reason that one Indica car of the petitioner was purchased by the respondent No.1, however, the same was not transferred in his name and he was using the said car, which later on was met with an accident wherein a child was died and it is further alleged that in relation to the said accident the compensation of Rs.86,500/- was to be paid to the parents of the deceased and for that purpose the respondent had given him the said cheque. 6. The trial court after taking into consideration the evidence produced on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent No.1 has come to the conclusion that in relation to the said accident one claim petition was filed before the M.A.C.T. Court, Nagaur wherein a total award of Rs.87,000/- was passed against the petitioner, respondent No.1 and the insurance company on 19.09.2005. The trial court has further observed that out of the total award of Rs.87,000/-, Rs.50,000/- which has already been paid to the parents of the deceased child as no fault liability would be adjusted thereafter the net payable amount would be Rs.37,000/-. 7. The trial court has observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence to the effect that he has paid the amount of compensation to the parents of the deceased child. The trial court has further observed that the insurance company has already paid the whole amount of compensation to the parents of the deceased child and in such circumstances it cannot be said that respondent No.2 is liable to clear any debt given to him by the petitioner. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after carefully scrutinizing the record of the trial court, I do not find any case to grant leave to the petitioner to prefer appeal against the judgment dated 25.08.2012 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan in criminal case No.20/2012. 9. Hence, this criminal leave to appeal is dismissed. 10. Record of the trial court be sent immediately. Leave to appeal Dismissed.