Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.: - Applicant, by way of instant application under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), seeks leave of this court for filing appeal against the judgement of acquittal dated 10.10.2014, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bilaspur, whereby complaint of the present applicant under Sections 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed, by passing the impugned judgement of acquittal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused-respondent as a friendly loan. He further submits that the applicant was having sufficient agricultural land and he duly proved his source for the amount in question. After some time, accusedrespondent issued the cheque in question in favour of the applicant. When the cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, applicant was left with no other option, except to file the complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present respondent-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant would further contend that the learned trial court misdirected itself, while not appreciating the voluminous evidence available on record in correct perspective and the impugned judgement has resulted in miscarriage of justice . In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on a judgment of this court in Rakesh Kumar Vs. Ravinder Kumar and another, [2012(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2613] : 2012 (3) RCR (Criminal) 301, to contend that the onus was on the accused to prove that he never received the amount from the applicant and he did not issue the cheque in question towards his existing financial liability. He prays for allowing the instant application for leave to file appeal against the impugned judgement of acquittal.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant-complainant at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the case noted herein above, present one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this court, against the impugned judgement of acquittal. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

4. Firstly, the applicant-complainant was duty bound to show that he had collected the cheque amount from his known source of income i.e. Agriculture. Admittedly, he did not bring any evidence, whatsoever, on record of the case so as to show, even prima facie, that he has drawn the said income of Rs.2,50,000/- from his agricultural land. During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to learned counsel for the applicant-complainant in this regard, he had no answer and rightly so, because it was a matter of record. Applicant did not produce any evidence in this regard for the reasons best known to him. In fact, he was proceeding on a presumption that the entire onus would lie on the accused-respondent. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgement of acquittal and the same deserves to be upheld.

5. When the respondent appeared before the court for getting his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he categorically deposed that he was not acquainted with the applicant-complainant nor he issued any cheque to the complainant in discharge of his existing financial liability. He finally referred to another transaction between his father and one Sanjay Kumar son of Prem. He also referred to a document Ex.R-11, which was a certified copy of plaint of Civil Suit No.1064 decided on 25.8.2014 titled as Hukam Chand etc. Vs. Sanjay Kumar.

6. Accused also placed on record numerous documents, including Ex.R- 3 to R-10, so as to prove the stand taken by him before the c