Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) The instant application for leave to appeal has been filed by the applicant complainant Kan Singh seeking leave of appeal against the judgment dated 26.3.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pali Camp Sumerpur, District Pali in Cr. Appeal No.48/2008 whereby the appellate court accepted the appeal filed by the respondents accused and set aside their conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sumerpur in Cr. Case No.1142/2003 vide judgment dated 21.11.2008. The learned trial Judge convicted the respondents for the above offence and sentenced them to suffer six months' simple imprisonment each and also directed them to make payment of Rs.10,000/- each to the applicant complainant by way of compensation. The appeal preferred by the accused respondents against the judgment of conviction was accepted and they were acquitted as mentioned above. Hence, this application for leave to appeal.
(2.) Shri Rajesh Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant contends that the learned appellate court acted in an absolutely conjectural fashion while accepting the appeal filed by the respondents. As per him, the fact that the respondent firm was under a legally enforceable debt to the applicant is admitted. All the necessary legal requirements for bringing home the charge under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are well proved against the respondents. Thus, as per him, the judgment of acquittal passed by the appellate court is absolutely illegal as the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court was based on just and proper appreciation of the material available on record and could not have been interfered with. He, therefore, submits that it is a fit case for granting leave to the applicant complainant for filing an appeal against the impugned judgment.
(3.) Per contra, Shri JVS Deora, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant. He submits that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents Smt. Vimla Devi and Rajkumar were responsible to clear off the liabilities of the firm Vane Chand Satish Kumar. The cheque does not bear the signatures of either Smt. Vimla Devi or Rajkumar. The firm was not impleaded as party in the complaint. Thus, as per him, the trial Court was absolutely unjustified in convicting the respondents for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate court is perfectly just and proper and does not require any interference.;