JUDGMENT :

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.

1. Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. This Court has heard learned counsel for the applicant and with his able assistance gone through the record of the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act'), once signatures on the cheque are not disputed, therefore, it was for the respondent-accused to lead evidence and rebut the presumption available under Section 139 of the Act. Hence, he submits that in absence of evidence, the Court committed an error in dismissing the complaint and acquitting the respondent.

4. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, has recorded following findings:-

(1) Complainant has failed to prove pre-existing liability of accused towards him. There is no cogent evidence of any particular money transaction between the complainant and accused.

(2) There is no definite date, month or year, place of advancement of any particular money to the accused so as to show pre-existing liability of the accus