Inderjit Singh, J.

The complainant/applicant has filed this criminal miscellaneous application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. against Devender Kumar Alwadhi for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 23.10.2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide which the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') has been dismissed and the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges as framed against him.

2. It has been mainly submitted in the application that the applicant is filing the accompanying criminal appeal against the judgment of acquittal which is likely to succeed as per grounds mentioned therein. It has been stated that the learned trial Court has totally ignored the evidence and proposition of law while dismissing the complaint. It has, therefore, been prayed that this application be allowed and leave be granted to the applicant to file appeal.

3. As per the averments made in the complaint, accused-Devender Kumar Alwadhi in discharge of his existing liability towards the complainant, issued two cheques bearing No.757064 dated 14.3.2009 for Rs. 40,000/- and cheque No.757065 dated 15.3.2009 for Rs. 35,000/-, which on presentation for encashment returned with the remarks "funds insufficient". Legal notice was given. When the amount was not paid, the complaint was filed.

4. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined Bhushan Kumar official from Punjab National Bank as CW-1, who proved statement of account of complainant as Ex.CW.1/A and other documents. He also got examined Amarjit Singh, Clerk of Vijaya Bank as CW-2 and also examined himself as CW-3 and closed his evidence.

5. At the close of complainant's evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the complainant, but he denied the correctness of the same and pleaded himself as innocent. He stated that the cheque in question was lying with the complainant as security because he and his brother are in the business of timber and used to deal with the complainant, since the accused used to purchase the timber from the complainant. He further stated that he has no payment to be made to the complainant. He accepted the suggestion that the cheques in question bear his signatures and further accepted the fact that legal notice was received by him. He further stated that after the receipt of legal notice he visited the complainant, who assured the accused that he will not file the complaint against him and as such the accused did not reply to the legal notice. No evidence in defence was produced by the accused.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, vide impugned judgment dated 23.10.2013 after appreciating the evidence acquitted the accused. Aggrieved from the said judgment, the present appeal along with application seeking leave to file appeal has been filed by the complainant.

7. Notice of motion was issued in this case.

8. Earlier Mr. D.S. Matya, learned Advocate has been appearing on behalf of the respondent, but today no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest this application.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the record.

10. From the record, I find that first of all there are no particulars regarding the existing liability as to how much money has been given and when it was given. No date, month or year has been mentioned as to when the money was given to the accused. There is nothing on record as to in whose presence and at which place this loan amount was given. Moreover, there is nothing on record as to whether the amount was paid in cash or by cheque etc. and on what interest. There are no particulars as to when the loan was demanded back. No receipt or any security document was obtained at the time of lending the money. Furthermore, there is no document on record to show the loan