JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Since, I do not intend to go into the comparative merits of the case and would like to concentrate only on legal issues, therefore, it is not at all necessary to go into the factual matrix of the case.

2. The appellant is the complainant whose complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short ''NI Act'') has been dismissed primarily on the following grounds:-

(i) section 139 of the NI Act does not lay down any presumption with regard to existence of the legally enforceable debt and presumption is merely in favour of the holder of the cheque and the complainant has to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt against the accused.

(ii) The friends from whom the complainant allegedly borrowed Rs. 50,000/- each and thereafter advanced to the accused not examined.

(iii) Advancement of loan in violation of section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act (for short ''IT Act''), therefore, not recoverable.

(iv) Loan not shown in Income Tax Return furnished by the complainant, entitled the accused for acquittal.

3. The interpretation given under section 139 of the NI Act by the learned trial Magistrate is based upon the view expressed