The burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in cases involving non-payment of loans under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

JUDGMENT

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J —The present application is maintained by the applicant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file an appeal against the judgment, dated 27.10.2016, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 2045-3/2014/2013, whereby his complaint, filed under Section 13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against the non-applicants/accused (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") was dismissed.

2. The key facts necessary for disposal of the present application can tersely be summarized thus: The complainant-company, being Non-Banking company, duly registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, approached the learned Trial Court by filing a complaint alleging that accused No. 1, who is the proprietor of M/s Singh Motors (accused No. 2) , took loan of Rs. 20, 00, 000/- (rupees twenty lac) from the complainant for purchase of tipper AMW 2518. It was further averred that the total value of loan amount is Rs. 24, 17, 400/- ( Rs. 20, 00, 000/- as loan amount and Rs. 4,17, 400/- as financial charges) and accused No. 1 was to repay the loan amount in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 67, 150/- each. It was further contended in the complaint that the loan was not paid regularly according to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Accused No. 1, on behalf of accused No. 2, issued cheque No. 026708 amounting to Rs. 18, 09, 068/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur, however, the same was returned to the complainant, through memo dated 15.01.2013, with remarks, unpaid due to insufficient funds. Thus, the complainant sent legal notice, dated 22.01.2013, alongwith acknowledgment, but the same were not received back. The complainant further contended that the accused failed to pay the cheque, so he filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court, hence the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the impugned judgment.

3. The learned Senior Counsel for the applicant (complainant) has argued that as the appeal raises substantial questions of law, the application for leave to appeal be allowed. He has further argued that the learned Trial Court found sufficient material, so accused No. 1 was summoned. There existed prima facie case against him, thus notice of accusation was put against him. He has further argued that subsequently the parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.10.2016 wrongly acquitted accused No. 1. Conversely, the learned counsel for the non-applicants (accused) has argued that accused No. 1 has been rightly acquitted and the complaint, so filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has been rightly dismissed. He has further argued that there is no illegality in the judgment rendered by the learned Trial Court, so no substantial question of law exists in the present case. The learned Trial Court considered all the aspects of the case and passed the impugned judgment after appreciating the evidence correctly and to its true perspective, so the application for granting leave to appeal be dismissed.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, I have gone through the record in detail.

5. Shri Mohinder Gautam (Complainant, applicant herein) examined himself as CW-1. As per his deposition, in July, 2011, the accused took loan amounting to Rs. 20, 00, 000/- for purchasing an AMW tipper. He has further deposed that financial charges on the loan were Rs. 4,17, 400/-, thus the total value of agreement was Rs. 24, 17, 400/-. The total loan amount was to be repaid in 36 monthly installments of Rs. 67, 150/- and an agreement was also executed to this effect. As the accused failed to repay the loan amount, so a cheque, Ex.CW-1/B, qua unpaid installments was issued, but the