ORDER 1. The instant leave to appeal application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant-firm for assailing the judgment dated 06.03.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) No.2, Jodhpur Metro, Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.192/2014 (NCV No.32201/2014) whereby the accused-respondent No.2 Ashok Mehta was acquitted of the accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act. 2. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by Shri J.K. Chanda, learned counsel representing the applicant-firm and Shri L.R.Upadhayay learned counsel representing the respondent-accused; and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record. The complaint came to be filed against the accused-respondent Ashok Mehta and one Loonkaran Mehta with the pertinent allegation that Loonkan Mehta had taken a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the complainant firm and that Shri Ashok Mehta stood as a guarantor for repaying the said loan with interest thereupon. Shri Ashok Mehta, handed over a cheque No.024998 for a sum of Rs. 1,29,800/- to repay the said loan amount of Loonkaran Mehta with the assurance that the cheque would be honored upon presentation. However, when the cheque was presented in the Bank, it was returned with the remark "account closed". The complainant filed the complaint after sending notice to the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, who did not respond thereto, whereafter the complaint came to be filed. The accused took a plea before the trial court that no loan had ever been taken from the complainant-firm and that some cheques were lying with the complainant which had been given to him for commercial purposes in the year 2008 and that the same had been misused. 3. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial court came to a conclusion that though the notice under Section 138 of the NI Act was drafted in the name of Loonkaran Mehta as well as Ashok Mehta but the acknowledgment receipt bore the signatures of Loonkaran Mehta only. The notice issued to Ashok Mehta was returned unserved. The trial court also took a note of the fact that the defence of the accused was probablised that an old cheque had been misused because the cheque was of the Rajasthan Bank whereas, by the time when the cheque came to be presented, the Rajasthan Bank had merged with the ICICI Bank. The trial court also took a note of the fact that the defence of the accused was probablised that an old cheque had been misused because the cheque was of the Rajasthan Bank whereas, by the time when the cheque came to be presented, the Rajasthan Bank had merged with the ICICI Bank. It was also observed by the trial court that the complainant-Dhansukh Sanklecha was an authorised representative of M/s Suncity Finance Company or that he had been authorised to institute the complaint. The complainant also did not lead any evidence to show that the accused Ashok Mehta handed over the cheque in question for clearing of the dues of his father towards M/s Suncity Finance Company. The surety bond (EX.P-3) which Shri Ashok Mehta gave to the complainant does not mention the number of cheque. In addition thereto, this Court is of the firm opinion that the complainant could not satisfy the Court as to how the amount of Rs. 1,29,800/- was arrived at for settling a small loan of Rs.40,000/- only. The complainant replied to this pertinent question saying that a settlement was arrived at between the parties but the settlement document also not available on record. 4. In view of these material facts, I am of the firm opinion that the trial court was perfectly justified in acquitting the respondent of the accusation under Section 138 of the NI Act. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 06.03.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference therein. 5. As an upshot, the instant application for grant of leave to appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 6. Record be returned to the trial court.