The accused can rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defense, supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT

Inderjit Singh, J. - Applicant-Vinod Kumar has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondent Davinder Singh, challenging the impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, vide which the accused-respondent was acquitted.

2. It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.

3. As per the record, complainant Vinod Kumar filed a complaint against accused Davinder Singh under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. As per complainant's version, accused was in friendly relation with him. Accused was in need of money and approached the complainant for financial help. On request of the accused, complainant gave a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- to the accused and in order to discharge his liability, accused issued a cheque bearing No.221595 dated 14.03.2013 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/- in favour of the complainant, which on presentation for encashment, was returned back dishonoured with the remarks 'account closed'. Legal notice was served. When the amount was not paid, then the complaint was filed within time.

4. The complainant examined himself as CW-1. At the close of complainant evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He was confronted with the evidence of the complainant and he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded his innocence. In defence, accused examined DW-1 Harbaksh Singh Manger, Handwriting and Fingerprint Expert and DW-2 Surjit Singh.

5. Learned JMIC, Ludhiana, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondent vide impugned judgment dated 20.01.2017.

6. Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along with application for grant of leave to appeal has been filed.

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

8. The perusal of the findings given by learned Magistrate shows that these have been given as per evidence and law. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse or against the evidence and law. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings are perverse or against the law and what illegality has been committed by learned Court below.

9. From the perusal of the record, I find that the complainant has not mentioned any date, month, year as to when the loan was advanced to the accused. No other particulars of any type have been mentioned in the complaint. No receipt or security document was got executed while lending such a huge amount of Rs. 2.20 lakhs to the accused. Otherwise also, there are no particulars, that at which place, in whose presence the loan was advanced and what was the mode of giving the amount, whether by cheque or by cash nor there is anything that the amount was withdrawn from the bank or it was lying with the complainant at his home. There is no document on record to show the loan transaction.

10. Further, from the record, I find that it is the case of the accused that complainant is also known by his another name as Vipan Kumar. He borrowed an amount of Rs. 80,000/- from the complainant in the year 2010.

11. He regularly paid the interest on the said loan amount. At the time of lending the amount, the complainant had obtained three blank signed cheques from the accused as security. On 22.11.2011, accused paid Rs. 20,000/- out of Rs. 80,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 60,000/- was agreed to be paid on monthly installments of Rs. 4000/- per month. At that time, the complainant executed affidavit dated 22.11.2011 duly witnessed by Surjit Singh. DW-2 Surjit Singh has supported this defence version. Further, DW-1 Harbakash Singh Mand