Judgment : 1. This is an Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur in Summary Criminal Case No.20795/2011. 2. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 were prosecuted by the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that three cheques totally amounting to Rs.7 lakhs, issued by the respondent no.3 on behalf of the respondent no.2 were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. At this stage, it may be mentioned here that the respondent no.2 was earlier a Private Limited Company and was later on converted into a Public Limited Company. The respondent no.3-Vivek was the Chairman of respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 was the Vice-President of respondent no.2. 3. The appellant-M/s Aditya Air Products Private Limited were manufacturing industrial and medical gases in their factories at Nagpur and Chandrapur. The respondent no.2 (earlier respondent no.1) had placed order through the respondent Nos.3 and 4 for LPG cylinders, CO2 gas cylinders and oxygen gas cylinders for being delivered at the sites of respondents at Amravati, Bela, and Chandrapur. It was alleged by the appellant that the material was supplied as per the order issued and thee cheques worth Rs.7 lakhs were issued in part consideration of the material supplied by the appellant. The total liability of the respondents was Rs.9,68,902/-. It was the case of the appellant before the trial Court that an amount of Rs.2 lakh was already deposited and, therefore, there was due of Rs.7,68,902/.. The respondents had allegedly issued three cheques to pay the due amount. The first two cheques of Rs.1 lakh each, were dated 12.1.2011 and the third cheque of Rs.5 lakhs was dated 12.4.2011. The goods were supplied during the period between 7th May 2010 and 8th March 2011. 4. Since the cheques were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds, the appellant had issued statutory notice after dishonour of cheques and after waiting for statutory period. They had lodged a common complaint in respect of all the three cheques, which has been decided by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class and the order of acquittal has been passed. 5. The defence of the respondents before the trial Court was that the cheques were issued by way of security deposit and that there was no legally enforceable liability due to the appellant. 5. The defence of the respondents before the trial Court was that the cheques were issued by way of security deposit and that there was no legally enforceable liability due to the appellant. It was the case of respondents that though the appellant claimed to have supplied material as per the order, the original order forms, delivery challans and other documents demonstrating sale of goods and delivery of the same to the respondents were not produced before the trial Court. The trial Court took note of the fact that though PW 1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that he had got all the original documents and he could produce the same as and when required, he failed to do the same inspite of the fact that this issue was raised by the respondents in cross-examination of PW 1. The learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence particularly cross-examination of PW 1, had come to the conclusion that the respondents have been able to rebut the presumption which could be raised in favour of the appellant. The learned trial Magistrate in his judgment has stated that the cross-examination of PW 1 indicates that he had no documents to support the claim of appellant that the goods were supplied to the respondents. 6. I have gone through the cross-examination of PW 1. Though PW 1 had shown his willingness to produce the original documents, he avoided to produce the same despite the fact that he was thoroughly cross-examined in respect of documents -Exhs 38, 39 and 40. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not filed delivery memo and invoice memo either with the complaint or with the affidavit of evidence in respect of the goods supplied by the appellant during the period between 7.5.2010 and 8.3.2011. He stated in his examination-in-chief that record could not be produced because it was bulky. He had repeated the same thing in the cross-examination. In fact, he should have realised that it was high-time for him to produce delivery challans and invoice memos. The claim of PW 1 that the record was bulky and, therefore, could not be produced, does not appear to be correct. He denied the suggestion that the dates of three disputed cheques were recorded by the staff members of the appellant. The claim of PW 1 that the record was bulky and, therefore, could not be produced, does not appear to be correct. He denied the suggestion that the dates of three disputed cheques were recorded by the staff members of the appellant. This suggestion on behalf of the respondents to PW 1 was not a bald suggestion, inasmuch as there is no explanation as to why the two cheques dated January, 2011 were deposited in the Bank in the month of June, 2011. In the ordinary course, no businessman will retain cheques with him for six months unnecessarily. If the two cheques worth Rs.2 lakhs were not deposited in the bank by the appellant, PW 1 owed an explanation for the same to the Court. 7. The learned Magistrate had taken the view that the respondents/accused had been able to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by probabilising their case. 8. Learned counsel Mr R.P.Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellant, has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported at 2013 All MR (Cri) 1204; {VPK Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. vs. Mrs. Nandini Waingade and another} and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2010) 11 SCC 441 ; {Rangappa vs. Shri Mohan}. This gist of the cases cited by Mr. R.P.Joshi, learned counsel, is that the presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and as to whether the same has been rebuttable or not, is to be considered by the Court on the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment reported at (2007) 5 SCC 264 : {Kamala S. vs. Vidhyadharan M J and another} has stated at paragraph No.15 as under : - "15. The Act contains provisions raising presumption as regards the negotiable instruments under Section 118(a) of the Act as also under Section 139 thereof. The said presumptions are rebuttable ones. Whether presumption stood rebutted or not would not depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case." 9. In the present case, considering the fact that PW 1 had been repeatedly showing his willingness to produce the documents but factually avoided to produce the documents was clearly indicative of the fact that the goods as alleged, were never supplied during the period between 7.5.2010 and 8.3.2011. In the present case, considering the fact that PW 1 had been repeatedly showing his willingness to produce the documents but factually avoided to produce the documents was clearly indicative of the fact that the goods as alleged, were never supplied during the period between 7.5.2010 and 8.3.2011. The view, therefore, taken by the learned trial Court, appears to be one of the probable views and does no call for any interference. The learned trial Court has rightly held that the standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption shall not be as strong as a standard of proof required for proving the prosecution case. 10. I do not find any merit in the Appeal. The Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.