JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2015, passed in Complaint Case No. 2480 of 2009/T.R. No. 143 of 2015, by the learned court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, whereunder, the accused persons/opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted of the charges under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. As per the case of the complainant, accused had purchased Nokia Mobile Handsets from the complainant and paid price by issuing cheque of Rs. 6,13,675/- dated 23.09.2009, drawn on State Bank of India, S.N. Ganguly Road, Main Road, Ranchi Branch. On being presented, the cheque was returned with the memo ‘debit to an NPA A/c’. On 06.10.2009, complainant sent legal notice to the accused on his residential address demanding payment within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, but, after receipt of the notice also, the amount remained unpaid. Therefore, the case was filed. 4. After solemn affirmation of the complainant and on enquiry, on the basis of a prima facie case being made out, summons were issued on the accused persons on 23.11.2009. Pursuant to that, they appeared on 07.09.2010. Substance of accusation was explained to them on 10.01.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. During the trial, complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and one other person C.W. 2 who claimed to be one of the Directors of Computer Network. Complainant adduced the following documentary evidence as Exhibits:- “Exhibit 1 Cheque no. 034193 dated 23/09/2009; Exhibit 2 Cheque return memo dated 24/9/2009; Exhibit 3 Legal Notice dated 6/10/2009; Exhibit 4 Postal Receipt; Exhibit 5 Acknowledgment; Exhibit 6 Debtors ledger; Exhibit 7 to 7/4 Tax invoice cum challan dated 30.6.09 of Computer Network; Exhibit 7/5 & 7/6 Tax invoice cum challan dated 29.6.09 of Computer Network.” 6. Defence had examined three witnesses including accused no. 1 as D.W. 3 and also adduced the following documentary evidence in his defence:- “Exhibit A, A/1, A/2, A/3 & A/4 Cheque issuing slip foil for Mobile Dot Com; Exhibit B Tax invoice cum challan dated 29.6.09 of Computer Network; Exhibit B/1 Money receipt dated 29.6.2009 of Rs. 96,700/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit C Tax invoice cum challan dated 30.6.2009 of Computer Network; Exhibit C/1 Money receipt dated 1.7.09 of Rs. 96,700/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit C Tax invoice cum challan dated 30.6.2009 of Computer Network; Exhibit C/1 Money receipt dated 1.7.09 of Rs. 1,37,600/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit C/2 Money receipt dated 6.7.09 of Rs. 1,30,000/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit C/3 Money receipt dated 8.7.09 of Rs.1,20,000/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit C/4 Money receipt dated 6.7.09 of Rs.1,28,000/- issued by Computer Network; Exhibit D to D/20 unused cheque leaf Sr. No. 34220 to 34240 of Mobile Dot Com.” On conclusion of the complainant’s witnesses, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 05.04.2014. He pleaded that there are no evidence against him. Complainant in his deposition supported the case set up in the complaint petition. He adduced the cheque bearing no. 034193 of Rs. 6,13,675/- dated 23.09.2009; return memo of the bank dated 24.09.2009; Legal notice dated 06.10.2009, Exhibit-3; Postal receipt, Exhibit-4; acknowledgment, Exhibit-5. He also adduced the Debtors ledger as Exhibit-6. Exhibit-7 to 7/4 are Tax Invoice cum challan dated 30th June, 2009 of Computer Network and Exhibit-7/5 & 7/6 are Tax invoice cum challan dated 29.06.2009 of Computer Network. 7. The complainant had adduced the ledger of the accused for the period from 1st April,2009 to 31st March, 2010 ( Exhibit-6); two tax invoice cum challan of Computer Network dated 30.06.2009 ( Exhibit 7 to 7/4) and dated 29.06.2009 ( Exhibit 7/5 & 7/6) respectively, in support of his case that the accused had purchased Nokia Mobile Handsets for a sum of Rs. 6,30,305/- to which few amount was given in cash and for remaining amount of Rs. 6,13,675/-, the cheque was issued. He claimed to be Director of the company but did not file any document in support thereof. According to him, he was in business of Nokia Mobile since 2005. Business relationship with the accused stopped in the year 2009, before that he was doing business in cash and on credit. Though the return memo showed that the cheque was bounced due to ‘the NPA A/c’ but the legal notice showed that the cheque was returned due to ‘insufficiency of fund’. At para-29 of his cross-examination, he had stated that the accused had given cheque 3-4 days prior to 23.9.2009 and that statement of ledger filed by him was correct. He further stated that the accused has made payment on 30.6.2009. At para-29 of his cross-examination, he had stated that the accused had given cheque 3-4 days prior to 23.9.2009 and that statement of ledger filed by him was correct. He further stated that the accused has made payment on 30.6.2009. However, he denied that on 1.7.2009, 6.7.2009, 8.7.2009 and 10.7.2009 payments were made against the amount of cheque. He further denied that on 29.6.2009 accused had paid the amount in lieu of bill of Rs.1,14,996/- dated 29.6.2009. He also stated that it is incorrect to say that accused had paid all the dues as per ledger. He also denied that cheques were issued as security and that one of the cheques was misused. He denied that cheque was not against any legally enforceable debt. CW-2 Ajay Kumar deposed that he is the brother of the complainant and also claimed to be one of the Directors of the Company. He also supported the case of the complainant. Defence produced DW-1 Md. Firoz, who claimed himself to be working in the shop of the accused DW-3 from 2008 to 2013. He further stated that the accused DW-3 used to purchase the mobile sets from the complainant, for this purpose, accused after putting his signature and writing ‘Mobile Network’ on the cheque used to give 10-12 cheques to the complainant. After delivery of goods, complainant used to encash the cheque and receipt was also given. DW-2 Md. Ikram also had stated that he had worked in the shop of accused between 2006-2009. He also deposed in similar fashion as DW-1. DW-3, the accused himself, in his testimony, stated that the business transaction with the complainant was in cash and on credit basis. He used to give blank signed cheques filling only ‘Computer Network’ against which the complainant used to give mobiles. After delivery of the Mobiles, complainant used to fill dates and amounts and thereafter, cheques were encashed. He filed cheque book of State Bank of India containing 100 leafs. He also stated that one time, he had given 20 cheque-leaf from Sl. No. 034141 to 034160 and second time, he had given 30 cheque-leaf from Sl. Nos. 034171 to 034200 as an advance, in the usual mode of business with the complainant. He filed cheque book of State Bank of India containing 100 leafs. He also stated that one time, he had given 20 cheque-leaf from Sl. No. 034141 to 034160 and second time, he had given 30 cheque-leaf from Sl. Nos. 034171 to 034200 as an advance, in the usual mode of business with the complainant. Some of the blank cheques were still lying with the complainant, which on being demanded, he has simply stated that they have been placed somewhere and he would not misuse the same. He has not returned the blank cheques till date. D.W. 3 categorically stated that cheque no. 034193 was issued as a security and not in lieu of the mobile purchased. He denied complainant’s version, regarding outstanding dues of Rs. 6,13,675, as correct. He further stated that against bill dated 29.06.2009 for Rs. 1,14,996/- and bill dated 30.06.2009 for Rs. 5,15,309, he had paid Rs. 96,700/- in cash on 29.06.2009 through money receipt no. 5377. On 01.07.2009, he paid Rs. 1,37,600/- in cash, against which, money receipt no. 5575 was issued. Similarly, money receipt no. 5743 was issued for payment of Rs. 1,30,000/- on 06.07.2009; money receipt no. 5934 was issued on 08.07.2009 in lieu of payment of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Again on 10.07.2009 Rs. 1,28,000/- was paid in cash for which money receipt no. 6074 was issued. In this manner, he has paid Rs. 6,12,300/- and also paid Rs. 50,487/- on 10.07.2009 on credit note. Altogether, he had paid Rs. 6,62,787/- and there was no dues against the complainant. He also proved and identified the bill of Rs. 5,15,309/- dated 30.06.2009 and bill dated 29.06.2009 for Rs. 1,14, 996/- as Exhibit-C &B respectively. He identified Exhibit-C series, the four money receipts. He has stated that between 05.07.2009 to 23.09.2009, no business transaction took place between him and the complainant. In his cross examination, he has stated that he had business relationship with Computer Network from 2006 to July 2009. Between this business period, he had done business worth rupees two crore by placing advance cheques and obtained money receipts from Computer Network, after payment of money. He had cash business with the complainant from January, 2009. He denied that he had given himself duly filled up cheques to the Computer Network. 8. Between this business period, he had done business worth rupees two crore by placing advance cheques and obtained money receipts from Computer Network, after payment of money. He had cash business with the complainant from January, 2009. He denied that he had given himself duly filled up cheques to the Computer Network. 8. Learned trial court, after considerations of the material evidence on record and analysis of the transaction between the parties, documentary evidence of the ledger of accused, maintained in the complainant’s shop, tax cum invoice challan dated 29.06.2009 and 30.06.2009; money receipts (Exhibit-C series); the cheque-leaf (Exhibit-D series), came to a finding that the accused had successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant was required to discharge the burden of proof through all cogent materials that the cheque in question was issued, as against a legally enforceable debt, by the accused persons. The transaction between the parties, led the court to believe that in course of business transition, the accused used to issue several cheques with the mention ‘Computer Network’ only and out of these cheques, only one cheque has been presented by the complainant for encashment. The complainant had failed to establish that it was against a particular legally enforceable debt. 9. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis, the learned trial court held that the complainant had failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or other liability. Accused had somehow proved that the cheques were issued in security, which the complainant failed to dislodge. Accordingly, accused persons were acquitted of the charges. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laboured hard on the basis of the materials on record to question the findings of the learned trial court. He submits that the ledger of the accused was maintained in the complainant’s shop. It showed that there were business transaction between the parties. Tax invoices were also proved as Ext.7 series which showed several Nokia mobile sets were purchased by the accused. Cheque, in question, was only in lieu of the purchase of these mobile, which, on encashment, was returned with the reason ‘debit to an NPA A/c’. The burden of proof had been discharged on behalf of the complainant. Learned trial court was, therefore, in error in holding that the accused had been able to rebut the presumption. Cheque, in question, was only in lieu of the purchase of these mobile, which, on encashment, was returned with the reason ‘debit to an NPA A/c’. The burden of proof had been discharged on behalf of the complainant. Learned trial court was, therefore, in error in holding that the accused had been able to rebut the presumption. The materials on record are sufficient to establish the charges against the accused person. Therefore, special leave to appeal may be granted. 11. Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has defended the impugned judgment and findings recorded by the trial court. According to him, the complainant has failed to establish that the cheque, in question, was issued as against a legally enforceable debt. Complainant’s own ledger book confirms the statement of DW 3 that transactions were made in cash between the parties during the period in question. No specific invoice for the same amount of Rs.6,13,675/- has been evidenced on the part of the complainant to justify that the cheque in question was issued as an acknowledgement of legally enforceable debt. The accused on their part have, through the several exhibits consistently shown that all the payments were made in cash for which corresponding receipts were issued by the Computer Network during the same period. In such circumstances, learned trial court was fully justified in holding that the complainant had failed to establish his case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, no interference is required. 12. Learned A.P.P. has also supported the impugned finding. 13. We have considered the submissions of the parties in detail. In the facts and circumstances and materials on record, discussed above, we are of the considered view that the accused/private opposite parties, herein, had, on the basis of their own exhibits, statements and the exhibits of the complainant, such as, debtors ledger and the tax invoices-cum-challans, shown that parties were in cash and credit transaction during the said period. From the debtors ledger, Exhibit-6, it is also evident that the transactions between the parties all throughout were in cash, except on the particular date of the cheque number 034193 for a sum of Rs.6,13,675/-. The complainant had not adduced any tax invoice cum challan showing the outstanding liability on the accused of the said amount as legally enforceable debt. 14. The complainant had not adduced any tax invoice cum challan showing the outstanding liability on the accused of the said amount as legally enforceable debt. 14. On consideration of the total materials on record, we are therefore of the view that the learned trial court had sufficient reasons to render a finding of acquittal. We, therefore, do not find any ground made out on the part of the petitioner for grant of special leave to appeal. The instant petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.