JUDGMENT 1. The office has pointed out a defect that typed copies of the order-sheets have not been filed. 2. Since, the handwritten order-sheets are legible, the defect pointed out by the office is overruled. 3. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court') in Criminal Case No.648/2015, whereby the trial court has ordered to frame charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NI Act')-The respondent, who is the Chief Manager of Bachat Evam Sakh Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jaisalmer (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Sahakari Samiti'), filed a complaint against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act alleging that the Sahakari Samiti advanced a loan to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- on 08.11.2012. It is further alleged that the petitioner furnished a cheque on 04.06.2015 to the Sahakari Samiti for the purpose of repayment of loan amount but when the said cheque was presented in the concerned bank, it was dishonored and returned with remarks 'insufficient funds'. 4. The trial court, after recording the evidence of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C, took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, framed charge against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. 5. The only contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner in this criminal misc. petition is this that the petitioner never took loan from the Sahakari Samiti and the allegations levelled in the complaint against him are false. 6. This Court is of the opinion whether the petitioner took loan or not from the Sahakari Samiti is a question which can only be decided after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. 7. So far as framing of charge is concerned, the trial court has to see prima facie evidence against the accused and in the present case, prima facie evidence for framing of charge against the petitioner is available on record, therefore, the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 8. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 9. 8. Hence, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 9. Stay petition also stands dismissed.