JUDGMENT : 1. The instant application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C for grant of leave to appeal has been preferred by the applicant-appellant Shravan Kumar for assailing the judgment dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Original Complaint No.307/2014 (348/2012) titled as Shravan Kumar vs. Vivek Mehta whereby the respondent accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 2. It may be stated here that initially the applicant-complainant filed an appeal No.40/2017 under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.03.2015 which was rejected by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali vide judgment dated 27.02.2017 holding the same to be not maintainable. 3. Admittedly, the limitation to file leave to appeal application against the judgment of acquittal recorded in a complaint case is only 60 days. The instant leave to appeal came to be presented on 05.05.2017 and is thus time barred by 774 days. 4. Learned counsel Shri Yogesh Sharma has pleaded that the appellant was bonafidely pursuing another remedy in a court of law and thus the time which was spent during pendency of the appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pali has to be excluded while counting the limitation. 5. In my opinion, the said plea is totally untenable. Apparently, the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. was not available to the applicant. The plea that that appeal was filed before the Sessions Judge inadvertently cannot a valid reason to condone the delay as ignorance of law is not a permissible defence. Thus, there is no justification to entertain this leave to appeal application after a gross delay of more than two years. Despite that I have heard and considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties on merits and have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2015 and the entire record. 6. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he came into contact with the respondent Vivek Mehta through a common friend named Rajesh Jain and on whose guarantee the complainant gave a loan of Rs.1,60,000/-to the accused who assured to return the same within three months. 6. The complainant alleged in the complaint that he came into contact with the respondent Vivek Mehta through a common friend named Rajesh Jain and on whose guarantee the complainant gave a loan of Rs.1,60,000/-to the accused who assured to return the same within three months. For reimbursement of this loan amount, the accused gave two cheques (1) No. 002824 dated 05.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.60,000/-drawn on HSBC Bank Branch Bund Garden Road, Pune & (2) No.000006 dated 10.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank Branch Sadashiv Peth Pune to the complainant after signing the same. While giving the cheques, the complainant was assured that the same would be honoured upon presentation. However, when the complainant presented the cheques in his bank, same were dishonoured as the account was closed and for insufficient funds respectively. Learned Counsel Shri Yogesh Sharma, representing the applicant-complainant submits that notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was given to the accused who failed to respond thereto and hence, the trial court was absolutely unjustified in acquitting the accused of the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Shri M.P. Solanki, representing the respondent (acquitted accused) pointed out that there was no interaction whatsoever between the complainant and the accused. The account of the HSBC Bank had been closed by the accused long back before the cheque was presented for collection by the complainant. The accused had given instructions to stop payment of the other cheque of Kotak Mahindra Bank. The accused came with a specific case that it was Rajesh Jain who somehow laid hands on the disputed cheques and misused the same by getting them presented in bank through Shri Sharvan Kumar with whom, the accused never had any kind of relationship fiduciary or otherwise. He thus, implored the Court to dismiss the leave to appeal application. 8. Having appreciated the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case as available on record and after going the impugned judgment, it is clear that Sharvan Kumar admitted in his evidence that he had no relationship fiduciary or otherwise with the accused. He claimed to have given a loan of Rs.1,60,000/-to the accused simply on the assurance of Rajesh Jain. Having appreciated the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case as available on record and after going the impugned judgment, it is clear that Sharvan Kumar admitted in his evidence that he had no relationship fiduciary or otherwise with the accused. He claimed to have given a loan of Rs.1,60,000/-to the accused simply on the assurance of Rajesh Jain. If the sworn testimony of the complainant is perused, it becomes clear that he admitted in his cross-examination that the accused never expressed any requirement of money to him and rather Rajesh Jain told him that the accused was in need of money. The accused is a resident of Pune whereas the complainant resides in Pali. Therefore, it just does not stand to reason as to why the accused would travel all the way down to Pali for taking loan of a sum of Rs.1,60,000/-from the person with whom, he had no connection whatsoever. The complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he is an electrician by vocation whereas the accused is a businessman. The cheque No.002824 dated 05.07.2012 issued on the HSBC Bank was dishonoured for the reason “account closed”. The other cheque drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank was dishonoured for three reasons :-(1) that the payment was stopped, (2) signatures were different & (3) funds were insufficient. 9. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the complainant failed to make out a case regarding existence of legally enforceable debt against the accused. The finding recorded by the trial court that it is a case of misuse of cheques is fortified from the material available on record. Hence, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 24.03.2015 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Original Complaint No.307/2014 (348/2012) does not suffer from any kind of illegality or perversity whatsoever warranting interference therein and I find no reason to grant leave to the complainant for filing an appeal there-against. Thus, the leave to appeal application is dismissed as being devoid of merit and so also as being time barred. Record be returned to the trial court forthwith.