JUDGMENT Manish Pitale, J. - By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, in Criminal Complaint Case No.6135 of 2007, whereby respondent no.1/accused has been acquitted of the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ''the aforesaid Act''). It was the case of the appellant/complainant that respondent no.1/accused had issued a cheque for specified amount in favour of the appellant for discharge of a legal debt and that since the cheque was dishonoured, offence under the said provision was committed for which respondent no.1/accused was liable to be punished. 2. The case of the complainant in brief was that, he was desirous of purchasing agricultural land admeasuring 120 acres, for which he along with one Ravindra Phadke entered into an agreement dated(Exhibit 18) with Ratan Khandare and Vijay Tripathi for a total consideration payable at the rate of Rs. 15,50,000/per hectare. It was further claimed by the appellant that he paid an amount of Rs. 5,21,000/to the said two persons and that thereafter he contacted respondent no.1 to help him to complete the transaction, as respondent no.1 was a broker with sufficient experience. 3. According to the appellant, he paid an amount of Rs. 5 Lakh in cash to respondent no.1 for his services and that respondent no.1, executed a document/agreement dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit 19) acknowledging the acceptance of the aforesaid amount from the appellant. It was further claimed by the appellant that amount of Rs. 5,21,000/given by him to the two aforesaid vendors mentioned in agreement dated was also handed over to respondent no.1 and that a further amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was taken by respondent no.1 from the appellant. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 11,21,000/was said to have been given to respondent no.1, who gave an assurance to help complete the transaction pertaining to purchase of agricultural land. 4. It was then claimed by the appellant that when respondent no.1 failed to discharge his responsibilities, he demanded return of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 11,21,000/from respondent no.1, pursuant to which a cheque for the said amount dated 25.12.2006 was issued by respondent no.1, which was dishonoured. 4. It was then claimed by the appellant that when respondent no.1 failed to discharge his responsibilities, he demanded return of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 11,21,000/from respondent no.1, pursuant to which a cheque for the said amount dated 25.12.2006 was issued by respondent no.1, which was dishonoured. It is pertinent to mention here that a document titled as Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 20), dated was brought on record which was allegedly executed between respondent no.1 and the vendors on one hand and the appellant along with copurchaser on the other hand. This document records that there were practical difficulties in completing the transaction and that, therefore, respondent no.1 along with the vendors agreed to refund the said amount of Rs. 11,21,000/to the appellant. 5. It was claimed by the appellant that upon dishonour of the said cheque, notice was issued under the provisions of the aforesaid Act and when respondent no.1 failed to discharge the liability and further failed to pay the said amount of Rs. 11,21,000/, the appellant was constrained to file criminal complaint dated 08.05.2007 under the provisions of the aforesaid Act before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur. 6. In support of the said complaint, the appellant placed on record documentary evidence, including agreement dated 07.10.2006 (Exhibit 18), agreement dated 13.11.2006 executed by respondent no.1 (Exhibit 19), Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.12.2006 (Exhibit 20), the dishonoured cheque, dated 25.12.2006 (Exhibit 21), Bank memo regarding dishonour of cheque (Exhibit 22), notice issued by the appellant (Exhibit 24) and postal receipts (Exhibits25 and 26). The appellant adduced oral evidence by entering the witness box and reiterating the statements made by him in his complaint. The respondent no.1/accused entered the witness box to present his version of the events. Vendors Ratan Khandare and Vijay Trivedi adduced the evidence as defence witnesses for respondent no.1/accused. 7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court below found that the appellant had failed to prove that an amount of Rs. 11,21,000/was given to respondent no.1 and further that the cheque in question could not be said to have been issued in discharge of legal debt or liability. 7. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record, the Court below found that the appellant had failed to prove that an amount of Rs. 11,21,000/was given to respondent no.1 and further that the cheque in question could not be said to have been issued in discharge of legal debt or liability. Apart from this, the Court below also found that the memo issued by the bank regarding dishonour of cheque did not bear the seal of the bank and that there was difference in ink of the signature on the said memo. For these reasons, the Court below found that the appellant had failed to make out a case against respondent no.1 for offence punishable under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act and thereupon, acquitted respondent no.1. 8. The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the said judgment and order. Shri Kotwal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that there was sufficient material on record to show that respondent no.1 had issued the cheque in question towards the discharge of liability as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2006 (Exhibit 20), which recorded the fact that respondent no.1 was liable to return the amount of Rs. 11,21,000/to the appellant, on account of failure to complete the transaction of purchase of agricultural land in terms of agreement dated 07.10.2006 (Exhibit 18). It was further contended that respondent no.1 had not denied his signatures on cheque (Exhibit 21), agreement dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit 19), wherein respondent no.1 had accepted the fact that he was paid a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh, and on the Memorandum of Understanding dated 19.12.2006 (Exhibit 20). Once, respondent no.1 admitted his signatures on the said documents, it was contended that the offence under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act was clearly made out against respondent no.1 and that the Court below had committed a grave error in acquitting respondent no.1. 9. On the other hand, Shri Teni, learned Counsel (appointed) for respondent no.1, submitted that the signatures of respondent no.1 were obtained on blank papers and blank cheque by the appellant, which were subsequently misused and that therefore, no offence was made out against respondent no.1 under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. 9. On the other hand, Shri Teni, learned Counsel (appointed) for respondent no.1, submitted that the signatures of respondent no.1 were obtained on blank papers and blank cheque by the appellant, which were subsequently misused and that therefore, no offence was made out against respondent no.1 under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. It was submitted that the cheque was essentially issued as a form of security and that there was no material on record to show that respondent no.1 had received a total amount of Rs. 11,21,000./from the appellant. It was also contended that document dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit19) could not be said to be an agreement because the signature of the appellant was not found on the said document and that it was signed by only respondent no.1. It was contended that this clearly demonstrated the misuse of blank signed paper by the appellant. The said document at Exhibit 19 also shows two alleged witnesses, neither of whom was examined by the appellant, thereby showing that the said document was not believable. It was further contended that the alleged Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.12.2006 (Exhibit 20) was also a document created on blank papers on which signature of respondent no.1 had been taken by the appellant. It was contended that since the alleged cheque was not issued towards the discharge of any legal debt or liability, the Court below was justified in acquitting respondent no.1. 10. I have considered the contentions of the rival parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence on record. A perusal of agreement dated 07.10.2006 shows that the appellant along with copurchaser Ravindra Phadke had entered into an agreement for buying agricultural land with vendors Ravindra Khandare and Vijay Trivedi and further that an amount of Rs. 5,21,000/was paid by the said purchasers to the vendors. The next document is alleged agreement dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit 19), which is said to have been executed by respondent no.1, since his services were engaged by the appellant for completion of transaction of purchase of agricultural land. It is recorded in this document that respondent no.1 acknowledges the fact that he has received Rs. 5 Lakh in cash from the appellant for facilitating the purchase of agricultural land. This document does not bear the signature of the appellant, although the appellant claims that it was an "agreement" executed between him and respondent no.1. It is recorded in this document that respondent no.1 acknowledges the fact that he has received Rs. 5 Lakh in cash from the appellant for facilitating the purchase of agricultural land. This document does not bear the signature of the appellant, although the appellant claims that it was an "agreement" executed between him and respondent no.1. The document at Exhibit 20 i.e. Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.12.2006 records that respondent no.1 and the vendors of agricultural land stated that they were unable to complete the transaction due to practical difficulties and that they were liable to pay the amount of Rs. 11,21,000/to the appellant and the copurchaser. It is stated in the said document that in order to return the said amount, a cheque was being issued. 11. The appellant appeared in the witnesses box in support of his complaint and denied that he had obtained blank signed cheque or blank documents with signature of respondent no.1. Other than that, the appellant reiterated the contents of his complaint. The respondent no.1 in his evidence stated that he was engaged as a broker by the appellant to facilitate the completion of transaction pertaining to purchase of agricultural land and that he was only interested in his brokerage. It was stated by respondent no.1 that the appellant expected him to help complete the transaction or to ensure return of the amount that had been paid by the appellant to the vendors, if the transaction did not materialize. It was asserted that the appellant had taken blank signed cheque as security and that blank papers were also got signed, on which eventually the appellant prepared the alleged agreement dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit 19) and Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.12.2006 (Exhibit 20). 12. The vendors in the said agreement dated 07.10.2006 (Exhibit 18) appeared as defence witnesses in support of respondent no.1. Both the said witnesses deposed that they had not given amount of Rs. 5,21,000/mentioned in the said agreement to respondent no.1. 13. Thus, the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record shows that the only evidence brought on record by the appellant to claim that amount of Rs. 11,21,000/was given to respondent no.1, was his oral statement. Both the said witnesses deposed that they had not given amount of Rs. 5,21,000/mentioned in the said agreement to respondent no.1. 13. Thus, the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record shows that the only evidence brought on record by the appellant to claim that amount of Rs. 11,21,000/was given to respondent no.1, was his oral statement. The alleged agreement dated 13.11.2006 (Exhibit 19) bears the signature of only respondent no.1 and if it was truly an agreement between respondent no.1 and the appellant, it ought to have been signed by the appellant also. In the said document, which is handwritten, it is stated that respondent no.1 acknowledges the receipt of Rs. 5 Lakh in cash from the appellant. In the face of the statement of respondent no.1 that the said document at Exhibit 19 was prepared on a blank paper bearing the signature of respondent no.1, it was incumbent on the appellant to have at least examined one of the two witnesses whose signatures are found on the said document. On failure of the appellant to examine at least one of them, the assertion of the appellant that he had given Rs. 5 Lakh in cash to respondent no.1 is not believable. As regards the amount of Rs. 5,21,000/, both the vendors who executed agreement dated 07.10.2006 (Exhibit 18) have stated in their evidence that they did not handover the said amount to respondent no.1. Therefore, only document at Exhibit 20 i.e. Memorandum of Understanding, dated 19.12.2006 remains as a proof of fact that the said amount was to be returned by the vendors along with respondent no.1 to the appellant and his copurchaser. In addition to the above, there is nothing placed on recored by the appellant to show that an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh in cash was further paid to respondent no.1. 14. Thus, there is lack of sufficient material and evidence on record to show that respondent no.1 was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 11,21,000/to the appellant, as claimed by him. The material on record supports the contentions of respondent no.1 that he was acting as a broker or a facilitator for the transaction of purchase of agricultural land and that if the transaction did not go through, he was supposed to arrange for return of the amount allegedly parted with by the appellant during the course of transaction. The material on record supports the contentions of respondent no.1 that he was acting as a broker or a facilitator for the transaction of purchase of agricultural land and that if the transaction did not go through, he was supposed to arrange for return of the amount allegedly parted with by the appellant during the course of transaction. It is, in this context, that the defence of respondent no.1 appears to be believable that blank signed cheque and blank signed papers were taken by the appellant from respondent no.1 by way of security. 15. In any case, the documentary and oral evidence on record does not prove that respondent no.1 was under a legal debt or liability to the extent of Rs. 11,21,000/, for which he had allegedly issued the cheque in question. The material on record, in fact, points towards the cheque in question having been obtained by the appellant by way of security. Once it is held that the defence of respondent no.1 is believable and that the cheque, although bearing signature of respondent no.1, was not issued by him for discharge of any debt or liability, it cannot be said that respondent no.1 committed an offence under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act, upon dishonour of the cheque. 16. The findings rendered by the Court below are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and they cannot be said to be perverse. 17. In the light of above, I find that there is no merit in the instant criminal appeal. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed and the order of acquittal passed by the Court below is confirmed. 18. Shri P.A. Teni, Counsel appointed for respondent no.1 is entitled to fees of Rs. 5000/.