JUDGMENT : CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, J. 1. The present application is maintained by the applicant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment, dated 27.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 1439-3 of 2014/2013, whereby his complaint, filed under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the non-applicants/accused (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) was dismissed. 2. The key facts necessary for disposal of the present application can tersely be summarized thus: The complainant-company, being Non-Banking company, duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, approached the learned Trial Court by filing a complaint alleging that accused No. 1, who is the proprietor of M/s Singh Motors (accused No. 2), took loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lac) from the complainant for purchase of tipper AMW 2518. It was further averred that the total value of loan amount is Rs. 24,17,400/- (Rs. 20,00,000/- as loan amount and Rs. 4,17,400/- as financial charges) and accused No. 1 was to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 67,150/- each. It was further contended in the complaint that the loan was not paid regularly according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Accused No. 1, on behalf of accused No. 2, issued cheque No. 026709 amounting to Rs. 18,09,010/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur, however, the same was returned to the complainant, through memo dated 15.01.2013, with remarks, unpaid due to insufficient funds. Thus, the complainant sent legal notice, dated 22.01.2013, alongwith acknowledgment, but the same were not received back. The complainant further contended that the accused failed to pay the cheque, so he filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, hence the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment. 3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant (complainant) has argued that as the appeal raises substantial questions of law, the application for leave to appeal be allowed. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court found sufficient material, so accused No. 1 was summoned. There existed prima facie case against him, thus notice of accusation was put against him. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant (complainant) has argued that as the appeal raises substantial questions of law, the application for leave to appeal be allowed. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court found sufficient material, so accused No. 1 was summoned. There existed prima facie case against him, thus notice of accusation was put against him. He has further argued that subsequently the parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.10.2016 wrongly acquitted accused No. 1. Conversely, the learned counsel for the non-applicants (accused) has argued that accused No. 1 has been rightly acquitted and the complaint, so filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been rightly dismissed. He has further argued that there is no illegality in the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court, so no substantial question of law exists in the present case. The learned Trial Court considered all the aspects of the case and passed the impugned judgment after appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective, so the application for granting leave to appeal be dismissed. 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail. 5. Shri Mohinder Gautam (Complainant, applicant herein) examined himself as CW-1. As per his deposition, in July, 2011, the accused took loan amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- for purchasing an AMW tipper. He has further deposed that financial charges on the loan were Rs. 4,17,400/- thus the total value of agreement was Rs. 24,17,400/-. The total loan amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 67,150/- and an agreement was also executed to this effect. As the accused failed to repay the loan amount, so a cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, qua unpaid installments was issued, but the same was dishonored vide memo, Ex.CW-1/C. Subsequently, a legal notice, Ex.CW-1/D, was sent to the accused. As per this witness, accused No. 1 issued the cheque, being the proprietor and authorized signatory of his firm (accused No. 2). He has also proved the postal receipts etc. This witness, in his cross-examination has denied that cheques were taken as security. He has further deposed that an amount of Rs. 9,14,350/- has been paid by the accused. As per this witness, accused No. 1 issued the cheque, being the proprietor and authorized signatory of his firm (accused No. 2). He has also proved the postal receipts etc. This witness, in his cross-examination has denied that cheques were taken as security. He has further deposed that an amount of Rs. 9,14,350/- has been paid by the accused. He has admitted that there is nothing to show that accused did not pay the installments or cheque amount of Rs. 18,09,010/- was outstanding as on 18.12.2012. He feigned his ignorance that the complainant-company has arrived on a settlement with the accused on 12.03.2013. He deposed that in the case in hand the accused had deposited Rs. 2,50,000/- on 08.03.2013. He has admitted that after the payment by the accused, he is not liable to pay the cheque amount. 6. The accused examined five witnesses. DW-1, Shri Devinder Verma, Collection Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra, Khalini Shimla, deposed that on 08.03.2013, through receipt No. 918024443, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited by accused No. 1 in account No. 16380003. Likewise, on the same day, through receipt No. 918024444, same amount had been deposited by him in account No. 1637936. On 09.03.2013, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was also deposited in account No. 1638026, through receipt No. 17633254. As per the deposition of this witness, an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was deposited in the account No. 1620416 of Shri Bhawneet Singh, through receipt No. 17633255. On 29.03.2013, through receipts No. 918383151, 918383150 and 918383149, amounts of Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 60,000/- and Rs. 80,000/- respectively, were deposited in accounts No. 1638026, 1638003 and 1637936. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that any person could deposit money in the account of the loanee. DW-2, Shri Ram Rattan, deposed that Shri Butta Singh is the proprietor of Singh Motors and he has account in his bank (Punjab National Bank) bearing No. 3382002100091618 and payments have been made to the complainant-company from this account. This witness got proved the statement of account, Ex.DW-2/A and also proved the entries therein, whereby payments have been made to the complainant-company. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that statement of account, Ex.DW-2/A, does not bear his signatures. He has further deposed that Ex.DW-2/A was signed by the Manager and he is conversant with his signatures. This witness got proved the statement of account, Ex.DW-2/A and also proved the entries therein, whereby payments have been made to the complainant-company. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that statement of account, Ex.DW-2/A, does not bear his signatures. He has further deposed that Ex.DW-2/A was signed by the Manager and he is conversant with his signatures. As per this witness, the amounts have been sent to Mahindra and Mahindra Company. He has deposed that there is no entry qua cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, in the statement of account, Ex.DW-2/A. However, he has voluntarily deposed that as the cheque was dishonored, so entry qua the same has not been shown in the statement of account. 7. DW-3, Shri Anurag Sharma, Legal manager of complainant-company, deposed that he had executed a final settlement, which is Ex.DW-3/A, with the accused and the settlement bears his signatures. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that settlement letter, Ex.DW-3/A, was given to accused No. 1 by hand. As per this witness, Ex.DW-3/A was executed in presence of accused No. 1. He has further deposed that three loans were taken in the name of the accused and one in the name of Bhawneet. The accused also made payment of installments of the loan which was on the name of Bhawneet. DW-4, Abhishek Chauhan (witness from ASIX Bank, Kasumpati Shimla), deposed that accused No. 1 has account No. 910010037660111 in AXIS Bank, Mohali. On 29.06.2012 a demand draft of Rs. 2,01,500/- copy whereof is Ex.DW-4/A, drawn from the account of accused No. 1 was paid to Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service. Likewise, on 29.06.2012, a sum of Rs. 55,200/- was received by the complainant-company and copy of statement in this regard is Ex.DW-4/B. This witness, in his cross-examination, could not depose through which loan accounts these payments were made. 8. DW-5, Shri Opil Kumar, Civil Ahalmad from the office of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fathebad Haryana, deposed that the complainant-company has maintained an execution of arbitration award in the Court qua loan agreement No. 1638026, dated 19.07.2011, wherein award, dated 11.03.2014, was passed by arbitrator Rajesh Kaushik. As per this witness, award of Rs. 18,06,109/- is payable alongwith interest @ 3%. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the accused did not deposit any amount in the execution. 9. The case of the complainant is that cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, amounting to Rs. As per this witness, award of Rs. 18,06,109/- is payable alongwith interest @ 3%. This witness, in his cross-examination, has deposed that the accused did not deposit any amount in the execution. 9. The case of the complainant is that cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, amounting to Rs. 18,09,010/- was issued for the liability, which was outstanding against the accused upto November, 2012. The statement of account qua agreement No. 16380003, Ex.CW-1/G, demonstrates that the accused have paid a sum of Rs. 8,72,950/- upto 20.07.2012 and thereafter no payment was made by the accused. Admittedly, agreement was for Rs. 24,17,400/- so as on 20.04.2013 the accused was only liable to pay Rs. 15,44,450/-. Now, if penalty charges are included, then also it cannot be said that the accused are liable to pay the cheque amount of Rs. 18,09,010/-. Thus, the claim of the complainant that cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, was issued for outstanding liability, stands disproved by complainant’s own document, i.e. Ex.CW-1/G. The accused examined Shri Anurag Sharma (DW-3), who is an employee of complainant’s company. This witness admitted the execution of settlement deed with accused No. 1, which is Ex.DW-3/A. Ex.DW-3/A demonstrates that settlement was arrived at qua four loan accounts. He has further deposed that the accused have taken loan for four vehicles and loan of three vehicles was taken in the name of the accused and one loan was taken in the name of one Bhavneet. He has admitted that installments of the loan of Bhavneet were also paid by the accused. 10. In the above backdrop, this Court finds that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt, so the findings of acquittal, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, are the result of proper appreciation of the evidence to its true and correct perspective. Thus, no interference is required in the well reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court. 11. After elaborately discussing the material, which has come on record, this Court finds that the appeal raises no substantial questions of law, so the application seeking leave of this Court for filing the appeal against the impugned judgment of the learned Trail Court, sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.