The complainant must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellate court should be slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal.

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.

Applicant, by way of instant application under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), seeks leave of the Court to file the appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the complaint of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act') was dismissed. Applicant also seeks condonation of delay of 839 days in filing the application for leave to appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant- complainant brought on record sufficient and cogent evidence so as to bring home the guilt of respondent-accused. He further submits that an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs was advanced in favour of the respondent. This cheque in question was issued by the respondent with a view to discharge his existing financial liability. Once the cheque was dishonoured because of insufficient funds, applicant-complainant was left with no other option except to file the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that during the course of trial, complainant duly proved his case but the learned trial Court misdirected itself, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal. He would next contend that the documentary as well as oral evidence brought on record by the applicant was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment. He prays for setting aside the impugned judgment, by allowing the instant application.

3. Seeking condonation of delay, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the applicant was pursuing his remedy before the wrong forum, the delay caused was bonafide. He further submits that the applicant was not going to gain anything in delaying the matter and the delay of 839 days deserves to be condoned.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the delay of 839 days is condoned, for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

5. Coming to the merits of the case, after giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, none of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the applicant has been found worth acceptance and the present one has not been found to be a fit case warranting interference at the hands of this Court, for the following more than one reasons.

6. It is a matter of record and not in dispute that as per the statement Ex C7 suffered by the complainant-applicant himself, the amount due was Rs.3,99,550/-. However, the amount claimed by the applicant- complainant by way of complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was Rs.1.80 lacs only.

7. During the course of hearing, when a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the applicant to reconcile about this major difference between these two figures, he had no answer and rightly so, because it was a matter of record. This material fact itself was sufficient to raise a serious doubt in the story put forth by the complainant. Although this discrepancy was sought to be explained by referring to a mutual settlement between the parties, yet nothing in this regard was stated in the complaint or during the course of leading evidence by the complainant. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that the learned trial Court committed no error of law, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and the same deserves to be upheld.

8. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment of acquittal would show that the learned trial Court considered each and every aspect of the matter before arriving at a judicious conclusion. The evidence brought on record was appreciated in the correct perspective. The relevant observations made by the learned trial Court in paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment, read as under:-

"Admittedly, complainant has proved cheque Ex C8, memo Ex C9 and legal notice Ex C10 on record but these documents does not prove the case