S.S.Saron, J.

1. The complainant-appellant M/s. Capital Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. in this appeal has assailed the order dated 3.2.1998 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, whereby the complaint of the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882 (`N.I. Act for short) has been dismissed and the respondent acquitted.

2. The complainant-appellant M/s. Capital Leasing and Finance Company filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act against the respondent on the allegations that the complainant is a partnership firm having its registered office at Chandigarh and A.S. Bindra in its partner who has been duly authorised to file the complaint. It is stated that the respondent issued a cheque dated 13.1.1993 for an amount of Rs. 1.00 lac drawn on the New Bank of India, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh to the complainant towards repayment/discharge of his debt liability towards the appellant-firm. The said cheque was duly presented to the bankers of the respondent by the complainant (appellant) through their bank but was returned back unpaid with the endorsement of "Insufficient Funds" by the Bankers of the respondent. After the cheque was returned as unpaid, the complainant issued a notice of demand to the respondent for the payment of Rs. 1.00 lac being value of the returned cheque. The said notice was duly sent to the respondent, who despite the notice, did not make the necessary payment. The respondent, it is alleged, has thus committed an offence under Section 138 N.I. Act and is liable to be punished.

3. During preliminary evidence, Harpreet Singh Narang, a partner of the appellant-firm appeared in Court as CW1 and reiterated on oath that the facts mentioned in the complaint were correct. He also produced on record the cheque, Ex. P-1, Memo Ex. P-2, the notice Ex. P-3, postal receipts Ex. P-4 and Ex. P-5, statement of accounts Ex. P-6 and entries of cheque returning register Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-8. The learned trial Magistrate from the perusal of oral and documentary evidence found sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent under Section 138 N.I. Act and, accordingly summoned him in terms of his order dated 22.5.1993. The respondent appeared on 17.8.1993. A notice of the substance of accusation was served on the respondent alleging that he on 13.1.1993, had issued a cheque for Rs. 1.00 lac and on presentation the said cheque was dis-honoured. Besides, the respondent was given a notice in this regard but inspite of that he did not pay the amount in question. Accordingly, the respondent was asked to show cause as to why he should not be punished under Section 138 N.I. Act. The respondent, however, by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 12750-M of 1993 filed in this Court sought quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against him. Notice was issued to the appellant and further proceedings before the trial Court were stayed on 18.10.1993. The said criminal miscellaneous petition was ultimately dismissed by this Court on 16.5.1996 and the proceedings before the learned trial Magistrate were recommenced.

4. The appellant examined Arvinder Singh, (CW-1) another partner of the appellant-firm, as a witness. He was examined after notice had been served on the respondent. He reiterated the version, as stated in the complaint. Arvinder Singh (CW-1) was cross-examined, in which he stated that the partnership firm in the name of complainant was not a registered one. They were having partnership deed but he could not produce the same in Court on the date of recording his evidence. It was also stated that he could not produce any proof to the effect that he had extended loan of Rs. 1.00 lac to the accused and, thereafter voluntarily stated that the payment was made by cheque. It is stated that his brother-in-law Shri Rupinder Singh introduced him with the respondent in the beginning and their firm had extended the alleged loan of Rs. 1.00 lac for the first time to th