Judgment Ms. Amarjot Bhatti, J. This is an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 22.09.2021. 2. The facts in brief are that the applicant and the respondent for starting a business executed an agreement on 21.10.2014 and respondent took an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, further Rs.1,20,000/- was taken on different dates. For discharging the liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.015080 dated 15.03.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/-, drawn on Central Bank of India, Ballabgarh, Faridabad. On presentation, the cheque was returned vide memo dated 20.03.2015 with remarks “funds insufficient”. After issuance of notice, on failure of the respondent to pay the amount the complaint was filed. 3. The respondent took a defence that two blank cheques including the cheque in question were given to the complainant as security in pursuance to the agreement dated 21.10.2014. The reliance was placed upon agreement (Exhibit C-7) to submit that only Rs.1,50,000/- was to be repaid and there was no enforceable debt of Rs.2,70,000/-. 4. The complainant admitted the fact that two cheques were given as security and only Rs.1,50,000/- was taken by respondent on 21.10.2014. In the cross examination, the complainant deposed that he was not aware of the contents of the complaint, the same was filed through his counsel and he had only signed the last page. He admitted that there was partnership between him and the respondent and profit sharing ratio was 60:40. Further that in blank security cheque, amount and date was filled by him. 5. The courts concluded that on shifting of onus on rebuttal of presumption by respondent, the complainant failed to prove existence of legally enforceable debt of Rs.2,70,000/-, consequently the respondent was acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that signatures on the cheque was not disputed. The existence of liability of Rs.1,50,000/- was admitted by the respondent. 7. The undisputed facts are: (i) as per agreement, the respondent had received an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (ii) two blank cheques as security were handed over to the applicant and (iii) the cheque in question was one of the security cheque, in which the amount and date was filled by the applicant. 8. The respondent was successful in rebutting the presumptions. The failure of applicant to prove existence of enforceable debt of Rs.2,70,000/- is fatal. 8. The respondent was successful in rebutting the presumptions. The failure of applicant to prove existence of enforceable debt of Rs.2,70,000/- is fatal. The contention that liability of Rs.1,50,000/- was admitted does not enhance the case of the applicant for convicting the respondent for dishonouring of cheque worth Rs.2,70,000/-. 9. There is no factual or legal error much less perversity in the impugned order. The view taken by the court below is plausible one. 10. Dismissed.