VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) This criminal leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking leave to file appeal against the judgement dated 04.05.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') in Regular Criminal Case No.311/2011, whereby the trial court has acquitted the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the trial court against the accused respondent Mahaveer Kumar with the allegation that on 30.06.2007, he has advanced a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-to the accused respondent and he has given him a cheque No.205952 dated 24.01.2008 for repayment of the said loan. It is alleged that the said cheque was presented in the concerned Bank on 10.06.2008 for realisation, however, the same was returned with remark "account closed". It is stated that a registered notice was sent to the accused respondent which was served upon him but despite that the loan amount was not paid to the appellant.
(3.) The trial court took cognizance against the accused respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and framed charge against him for the aforesaid offence. The appellant got himself examined as PW-1 and got exhibited certain documents. The statement of the accused respondent were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that he never received any loan from the appellant and cheque in question was given to him in security for not filing first information report in the police in some Post Office Scam, where wife of the accused respondent was the agent. The accused respondent has also stated that after handing him over the cheque as security, the appellant filed FIR after three days and, therefore, he got the account closed. In defence, the statements of wife of the accused respondent were recorded as (DW-1) and the accused respondent has also appeared as (DW-2) and ten documents were produced in defence.;