S S CHOUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the instant petition, petitioner has sought leave to appeal to the appellant against the judgement dated 04.01.2012, whereby respondent No. 2 has been acquitted from the complaint being filed by the petitioner under Section 138 N.I. Act. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Trial Court has not considered the evidence on record, which is in favour of the appellant, and has passed the impugned order on presumptions and conjecture. The respondent No.2/accused had to prove his innocence not the petitioner/complainant his complaint and allegations therein. Therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse and bad in law.

(2.) As recorded by ld. Trial Judge in its impugned judgment mentioned above, in March 2007, the respondent No. 2 had approached the petitioner and sought a loan of Rs. 80,000/- for the marriage of his daughter. Keeping in view, the cordial relationship between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and the assurance of respondent No. 2 that the loan would be returned, shortly, accordingly petitioner had advanced a loan of Rs. 80,000/- to respondent No. 2, by way of cash on 23.03.2007.

(3.) After receiving the loan, respondent No. 2 had delayed the repayment of the loan on one pretext or the other. In 2009, when the petitioner once again approached respondent No. 2 for repayment of the loan, he had handed over a cheque bearing No. 865164 dated 23.03.2009, drawn on State Bank of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi to the petitioner.