Mr. Vijay Bishnoi, J.

1. This criminal leave to appeal has been preferred by the appellant-bank seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Regular Criminal Case No.598/2013, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NI Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Nationalised Bank and is in business of advancing loan to it’s customers. On behalf of it a complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act before the trial court on 29.10.2012 with the allegations that the respondent is working in the Western Railway and a loan was given to him by the appellant-bank in the Ridhi Sidhi Scheme. It is alleged that for repayment of the said loan, the respondent gave a cheque to the appellant-bank bearing Cheque No.329401 dated 13.08.2012 of amounting to Rs.72,405/- payable at Punjab National Bank, Branch Pratap Nagar, Chittorgarh with the assurance that on presenting the said cheque in the concerned bank, the same will be realised. It is alleged that when the said cheque was presented for realisation in the concerned bank the same was returned with the remark of insufficient fund. It is contended that thereafter a registered notice dated 17.08.2012 was served upon the accused respondent by the appellant-bank through it’s advocate, which was received by the accused respondent on 15.09.2012, but despite that he did not make the payment of the said cheque and, therefore, this complaint.

3. The trial court took cognizance against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act on 05.02.2013 and, thereafter, framed charge for the aforesaid offence against him on 28.01.2014.

4. In support of the complaint, the appellant-bank produced two witnesses and also got exhibited five documents. The appellant-bankments of the accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he also got examined himself as defence witness.

5. The trial court, after pondering over the evidence produced on behalf of the parties, has acquitted the accused respondent for the aforesaid offence.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank has submitted that as per Section 139 of the NI Act, it is obligatory on the Court to raise a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the same was given by the accused for discharging of a legally enforceable debt. It is further submitted that the accused respondent appeared as a witness in defence and admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also admitted that he served with the notice by the appellant-bank but despite that he did not make payment of it. Learned counsel for the appellant-bank has argued that once the accused respondent admitted his signature on the cheque in question and also admitted that the notice sent by the appellant-bank was served upon him, this fact itself is sufficient to record the finding of guilt of the accused respondent. It is contended that the trial court has erred in acquitting the accused respondent while holding that the appellant-bank has failed to discharge the initial burden to prove that the cheque in question was given to it by the respondent against a legally enforceable debt. Learned counsel has argued that because in view of the admission of the accused respondent and in view of the statuary presumption in favour of the appellant-bank, as provided under Section 139 of the NI Act, the said finding of the trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan reported in 2010(3) RLW 2379 (SC) and appellant-banked that it is a fit case wherein leave to appeal be granted.

8. Per contra, learne