JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar, whereby the accused-respondent has been acquitted of the charges under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the applicant/appellant (hereinafter known as the complainant) alleging that the respondent (hereinafter known as accused) had taken loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for domestic purposes with a promise to return the same. On 19.03.2018, the accused, in order to discharge her legal liability, issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- of Punjab National Bank, Branch College Road, Rupnagar to the complainant. On 20.03.2018, the complainant presented the said cheque with his bankers i.e. UCO Bank, Rupnagar but the cheque was dishonoured and received back with the remarks "funds insufficient" on 21.03.2018. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused through his counsel Sh. S.K Wahi, Advocate on 04.04.2018 and the same was received by the accused on 05.04.2018. But, despite receipt of the notice, the accused neither gave any reply nor made the payment leading to the filing of the complainant.

3. In order to prove his case, the complainant examined Nirmal Singh, Special Assistant, UCO Bank as CW1, Kamaljit Singh, Scale-1 Officer, PNB Bank as CW2, examined himself as CW2A (numbered as CW2 inadvertently, however renumbered as CW2A). In the documentary evidence, the complainant placed on record the original cheque bearing No.529479Ex.C1, return memo Ex.C2, legal notice dated 04.04.2018 Ex.C3, acknowledgment Ex.C5 and thereafter, the complainant closed his after notice evidence.

4. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. putting to him all the incriminating evidence against him to which he pleaded his innocence and claimed false implication. In defence, the accused examined Manjit Kaur wife of Iqbal Singh as DW1 and thereafter, the accused closed her defence evidence vide separate statement dated 26.11.2019.

5. After hearing the counsel for the complainant and the accused, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the complainant had not disclosed in his complaint nor in his evidence as to the nature of his relationship with the accused and it was not believable that a person would advance a huge amount to an unknown person. The complainant had made contradictory statements in his complaint as well as in his evidence in Court. He had stated that the loan had been advanced by him after withdrawing the same from the savings account of his wife Manjeet Kaur but during the cross-examination, he stated that the accused had taken a loan from his wife. DW1-Manjeet Kaur wife of the complainant stated that she had advanced a loan to the accused. The complainant had failed to prove any document that had been executed at the time of the advancement of the loan and it was not believable that a huge amount had been advanced as a loan without any corresponding documentation. Further, the loan amount advanced to the complainant had not been mentioned by him in his Income Tax Returns which he did not prove on record. Thus, the Court while acquitting the accused held that as the mere statement of the complainant was not enough to prove that he had advanced a huge amount to the accused