JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Vashisth, J.)

This is an appeal filed by the complainant against the judgment dated 23.01.2009, passed by the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ropar (for brevity `Ld. Trial Court'), in a complaint case bearing No.RT-152/01.03.07/06.11.2008, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short `NI Act'), whereby, respondent (accused) was acquitted.

2. In the complaint case filed before Ld. Trial Court, it was alleged that accused had purchased diesel from appellant in the month of 2006, for a sum of Rs.25,000/-, and in discharge of his liability, a cheque bearing No.789210, dated 13.01.2007, drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd., Ropar, in favour of the complainant (appellant herein) was issued. On presentation of said cheque in the Bank, same was received back dishonoured vide memo dated 13.01.2007, with remarks "insufficient funds".

After covering all the legal steps, a complaint bearing No.RT-152/01.03.07/06.11.2008, under Section 138 of NI Act, was instituted by the complainant.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence, accused (respondent herein), vide order dated 01.03.2007, was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of NI Act. After appearance, notice of accusation was also served vide order dated 03.05.2008, to which accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.

4. Considering the material i.e. documentary and the oral evidence, Ld. Trial Court, reached the conclusion that accused has successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act, and therefore, cannot be fastened with the liability in the absence of existence of debt/liability on the date of issuance of cheque. Hence, accused was acquitted by dismissing the complaint.

5. During the course of hearing, counsel for the appellant referred to the document i.e. Bank Account Statement for the period 01.03.2007 to 31.03.2007, which has been annexed first time with the present memo of appeal as Annexure A1. Although, counsel failed to establish the relevancy of said document, yet there is no answer that as to why this Court must examine any such document, which was never the part of the record before the Ld. Trial Court.

6. Similarly, counsel for the appellant tried to refer to the another document, attached with the memo of appeal as Annexure A2, i.e. copy of ledger of Manpreet Singh (accused-respondent herein) for the period of 26.05.2006 to 06.03.2007, and argues that as per said document an amount of Rs.43,151/- was payable on 06.03.2007 by the accused to the firm of the complainant i.e. M/s.Hari Chand Sant Dass.

Again counsel has failed to give any reason as to why this Court should pay any attention to the ledger entries of the complainant-firm, when same was not a part of record before the Ld. Trial Court. Thus, both the aforesaid referred documents are not required to be examined by this Court in appeal against acquittal. Otherwise also, both the documents are the proved documents in the form of admissible evidence.

7. Counsel for the appellant also argued that judgment of acquittal was passed in a routine manner, and has not paid any attention to the fact that cheque return memo dated 13.01.2017, which is available on record as Ex.P2, clearly shows that the cheque bounced because of `insufficiency of funds'.

In this regard, counsel for the respondent pointed out to the finding given by Ld. Trial Court in its judgment dated 23.01.2009, and thus, argues that no one from the Bank is called to prove the factum of presentation of cheque, and dishonouring of the same due to `insufficiency of funds'.

8. After hearing counse