JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. In Criminal Appeal No.246 of 2013, learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur by the impugned judgment dated 25.07.2017 acquitted the accused/Opposite Party No.2 herein of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 19.08.2013, rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/1 Case No.3882 of 2009. 3. The complainant is seeking leave to appeal. The instant complaint was lodged alleging dishonour of a cheque, bearing no.661368 for Rs.1,70,000/-(Rupees one lakh seventy thousand only) issued by Opposite Party No.2, on being presented before the Bank of India, Sakchi Branch, on account of “Insufficient Fund”. Complainant alleged that the cheque was issued in lieu of friendly loan paid to the accused by him. The learned trial court came to a finding of guilt, on being satisfied that after the receipt of return memo on 26.10.2009 complainant sent a legal notice on 28.10.2009, but, the accused failed to return the cheque amount within the prescribed time limit as provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act stood fulfilled. He was, accordingly, sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,70,000/-as compensation to be paid to the complainant. In default of fine, he had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Learned appellate court analyzed the material evidence on record and found that the cheque was returned with the endorsement by the bank “Fund Insufficient” and there was a further endorsement that the “Cheque Is Not Valid”. Cheque, in question, (Ext.-3), showed that it is a loose cheque though the account number was mentioned and signature was also there but the accused denied his signature. It was held irrelevant as the Bank had not made any endorsement to the fact that the signature of the drawer of the cheque varies. Accused had denied taking any friendly loan. The complainant, on his part during his examination and cross-examination, could not say the date and time of giving of the friendly loan nor produced any document of giving such friendly loan. As per the learned appellate court, cheque should have been issued validly against any legally enforceable debt or liability. Accused had denied taking any friendly loan. The complainant, on his part during his examination and cross-examination, could not say the date and time of giving of the friendly loan nor produced any document of giving such friendly loan. As per the learned appellate court, cheque should have been issued validly against any legally enforceable debt or liability. If the loan had become time barred then the cheque for such debt, even if it is dishonoured will not be covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. If the cheque was not valid, no prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is maintainable as the basic requirement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is the issuance of valid cheque. If the cheque itself is invalid, there is no reason as to why it should be dishonoured and then whether there was sufficiency of fund or not, is not required to be examined for the purpose of prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The banker had not been examined nor the complainant had stated anything with regard to the reason as to why the endorsement on the cheque not being valid was made by the banker. The learned appellate court, therefore, found error in the finding of the learned trial court in coming to the conclusion that the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act were proved against the accused. In those circumstances, the Opposite Party No.2 was acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made strenuous efforts to show that the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act had been fully established during the trial. Not only the cheque, on being presented, was dishonoured due to insufficient fund but also the complainant failed to repay the cheque amount after proper service of legal notice within the time prescribed. Nothing more was required to be shown by the complainant when he clearly alleged that the cheque was in lieu of a friendly loan. The learned appellate court was, therefore, in error in acquitting opposite party no.2 of the charges levelled against him in the wake of such adequate material evidence on record. 6. Nothing more was required to be shown by the complainant when he clearly alleged that the cheque was in lieu of a friendly loan. The learned appellate court was, therefore, in error in acquitting opposite party no.2 of the charges levelled against him in the wake of such adequate material evidence on record. 6. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned judgment of acquittal by the appellate court as also the judgment of the learned trial court. Learned appellate court has been guided by the fact that the endorsement by the Bank clearly indicated that the cheque was not valid. Why the cheque was not valid or valid had to be shown by the complainant through his evidence and/or by examination of the banker, which he failed to do. The complainant also failed to state clearly the date and time of the friendly loan or any documentary evidence of such friendly loan having been advanced to the accused. In those circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant-petitioner has failed to make out any case for grant of leave to appeal. 7. The instant petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.