JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The accused revisionist stands concurrently convicted by both the learned Courts below for hers committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in sequel whereof a sentence of simple imprisonment of one year besides qua hers defraying compensation to the complainant in an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- stood imposed upon her. The accused standing aggrieved by the concurrently recorded findings of conviction by both the Courts below has concerted through instituting the instant revision here before beget its reversal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the accused executed cheque comprised in Ext.CW-1/B in favour of the complainant in the sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The said cheque was drawn on the State Bank of India, Shimla. The accused executed and advanced the aforesaid cheque in favour of the complainant for carrying out the construction of a set on the slab purchased by the accused. The accused had also issued another cheque worth Rs. three lacs in favour of the complainant for the aforesaid purpose of construction to be carried out by the complainant. Both of these cheques got dishonoured and another complaint regarding the second cheque was also filed by the complainant. The cheque was drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant for discharge of the legally enforceable debt and liability outstanding against the accused in favour of the complainant. The cheque was dishonoured by the banker of the accused with the remarks of insufficient funds. The information of the dishonour of the cheque was given to the banker of the complainant by the banker of the accused and the complainant sent a notice of demand of the amount intimating the accused in the event of her failure to pay the cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, legal action for her criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shall be taken by the complainant. The notice was received by the accused on 15.08.2007 but till date she failed to make the payment. Hence, this complaint. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for hers committing offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined 5 witnesses. Hence, this complaint. 3. Notice of accusation stood put to the accused by the learned trial Court for hers committing offences punishable under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove its case, the complainant examined 5 witnesses. On closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded in which she pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. She herself appeared as witness in her defence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, both the Courts below returned findings of conviction against the accused/petitioner herein. 6. The accused stands aggrieved by the judgment of conviction recorded by both the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction recorded by both the Courts below standing not based on a proper appreciation by it of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and being replaced by findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the Courts below, standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and hence theirs not necessitating interference rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Cheque comprised in Ext.CW-1/B stood issued by the convict/revisionist to the respondent/complainant. It holds there within an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. On its presentation before the bank concerned whereupon it stood drawn it suffered the ill fate of its refusal qua encashment by the bank concerned, refusal whereof sprouted from non occurrence of sufficient funds thereat in the account of the convict/revisionist. 10. It holds there within an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. On its presentation before the bank concerned whereupon it stood drawn it suffered the ill fate of its refusal qua encashment by the bank concerned, refusal whereof sprouted from non occurrence of sufficient funds thereat in the account of the convict/revisionist. 10. The mere factum of its issuance by the petitioner, though arouses a statutory presumption qua thereupon the petitioner/convict acquiescing qua its standing issued vis-à-vis the complainant in discharge of her apposite liability qua the complainant yet the aforesaid statutory presumption garnerable from the mere factum of its issuance is rebutable by cogent evidence in dislodgement thereof standing adduced by the petitioner/convict, holding unfoldments therein qua in the issuance of Ext.CW-1/B by the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent/complainant, she in the amount embodied therein not concerting to discharge any liability vis-à-vis the respondent complainant whereupon the respondent complainant would not be construable to its lawful drawee, contrarily the statutory presumption marshable from its issuance qua its thereupon begetting an inference qua its standing issued by the petitioner convict vis-à-vis the respondent complainant in discharge of her contractual liability qua its drawee would stand dislodged, corollary whereof would be the penal in culpability fastened upon the petitioner/convict arising from its on its presentation before the bank concerned its begetting the ill fate of its for lack of sufficient funds in the accounts of the convict suffering refusal qua its encashment, would stand negated. 11. The petitioner/convict had under a sale deed comprised in Ext.CX/II borne on the file Com. Case No. 169/3 of 2007 purchased properties as stand displayed therein from the wife of the complainant. In sequel to the registered deed of conveyance comprised in Ext.CX/II standing executed inter se the wife of the complainant with the petitioner herein, a civil suit embodied in Ext.DW-1/A stood subsequently instituted by the vendor of Ext.CX/II before the Civil Court concerned where within a declaratory relief qua Ext.CX/II being quashed and set-aside stood ventilated. In sequel to the registered deed of conveyance comprised in Ext.CX/II standing executed inter se the wife of the complainant with the petitioner herein, a civil suit embodied in Ext.DW-1/A stood subsequently instituted by the vendor of Ext.CX/II before the Civil Court concerned where within a declaratory relief qua Ext.CX/II being quashed and set-aside stood ventilated. When the aforesaid factum stands conjunctively construed with the factum of the respondent complainant throughout in his complaint also in his testification espousing qua the RCC slab purchased thereunder by the petitioner convict from his wife standing completed by him under an agreement arrived at inter se him with the petitioner convict whereas the amount expended thereon by him remaining not fully liquidated by the petitioner convict, the latter in liquidation of her apposite contractual liability towards him thereupon issuing cheque Ext.CW-1/B qua him whereupon he espoused qua the issuance of cheque comprised in Ext.CW-1/B standing issued to him by the convict in discharge of her apposite liability aforesaid. In the aforesaid backdrop, the relevant best evidence is enjoined to emanate qua in the issuance of cheque Ext.CW-1/B by the petitioner/convict purportedly vis-à-vis the respondent complainant, its issuance standing generated by hers thereupon concerting to discharge her liability towards the wife of the complainant arising from hers purchasing property from the vendor of sale deed Ext.CX/II or evidence was enjoined to surface to succor the espousal of the respondent qua its standing issued by the petitioner/convict vis.a.vis him in discharge of her liability qua him arising from hers not liquidating qua him the entire expenditure incurred by him for completing the construction of a flat which hitherto stood purchased from his wife in an incomplete condition. Only an advertence to the apposite evidence qua the aforesaid factum would clinch the trite factum qua whether the respondent was a lawful drawee of Ext.CW-1/B also would clinch the factum qua the statutory presumption arousable from its mere issuance by the petitioner convict vis-a-vis the respondent complainant qua hers thereupon acquiescing qua hers in issuing it hence assaying to liquidate her contractual liability vis.a.vis the respondent complainant, hence standing strengthened or standing dislodged. The testification of the respondent complainant manifested in his cross-examination where within he has made an assay to propagate therein qua previous to issuance of Ext.CW-1/B by the petitioner qua him the latter also issuing 5 to 6 cheques to him, cheques whereof stood encashed, some whereof being account payees whereas others being payee cheques yet he has been unable to adduce before the learned trial Magistrate the serial numbers borne by the cheques which previous to issuance of each stood issued by the petitioner accused to him, cheques whereof begot encashment. His omission to produce the details or serial number of cheques which stood previous to the issuance of each stood issued by the petitioner convict qua him, cheques whereof stood purportedly encashed begets a sequel of his smothering the best evidence for succoring his testification qua earlier to issuance of Ext.CW-1/B, the petitioner/convict also issuing cheques which stood purportedly encashed whereupon the inevitable inference warranting erection is qua his strategizing the factum of issuance of Ext.CW-1/B by the accused qua him arising from discharge of the afore-echoed purported contractual liability of the petitioner convict towards him. Furthermore, during the course of recording of his testification embodied in his cross-examination his not adducing before the learned Magistrate concerned the apposite bills personifying the material purchased by him to complete the construction of the incomplete flat purchased from his wife by the petitioner convict, is a vivid display of his in the garb of holding cheque bearing Ext.CW-1/B contriving the factum of its issuance spurring from the petitioner convict thereupon concerting to liquidate her liability towards him arising from his completing the construction of an incomplete RCC slab purchased by her from his wife. Now, here at with the wife of the complainant who alienated RCC slab qua the petitioner convict under Ext.CX-II, subsequently thereto instituting a suit before the civil Court concerned wherein she made a prayer for quashing of sale deed embodied in Ext.CX-II also assumes significance where form an inference stands aroused qua the issuance of cheques comprised in Ext.CW-1/B spurring from the petitioner convict thereby discharging or liquidating her liability towards the wife of the complainant qua the sale consideration of the property which she purchased from the vendor of Ext.C-2 whereupon it would be inapt to conclude qua in its issuance the petitioner convict concerting to discharge her liability qua the respondent complainant arising from his purportedly completing construction of an incomplete slab purchased by her from his wife. It also appears from a perusal of Ext.D-2 existing on file of Com. Case No. 169/3 of 2007 qua the entire financial liability arising from sale of property by the wife of the respondent complainant to the petitioner convict standing discharged. The date whereon the relevant discharge occurred stands displayed therein to be 11.4.2007 whereas Ext. CW-1/B stood issued in close proximity thereof on 15.7.2007. Though Ext.D-2 is a photocopy yet the signature of the respondent complainant occur therein also the signatures of his wife occur therein besides when on the document aforesaid making the aforesaid disclosures standing tendered into evidence its exhibition remaining un-protested by the respondent complainant also the respondent complainant not disputing the occurrence of his signatures thereon nor is disputing the occurrence of signatures of his wife thereon wherefrom it is to be concluded qua the manifestations held therein holding probative sinew. It appears qua in the issuance of Ext.CW-1/B by the petitioner convict especially when it bears a date holding close proximity, to Ext.D-2 it not standing issued in discharge of any purported contractual liability of the petitioner/convict qua the respondent/complainant. The aforesaid inference garners immense formidability from a statement recorded by the wife of the complainant in Civil Suit Ext.DW-1/A existing on file Com. The aforesaid inference garners immense formidability from a statement recorded by the wife of the complainant in Civil Suit Ext.DW-1/A existing on file Com. Case No. 169/3 of 2007 wherein in her cross-examination to which she stood subjected to by the learned counsel for the convict she despite stating in her pleadings qua an incomplete slab standing purchased by the petitioner from her she yet feigning ignorance qua the person who completed its construction wherefrom the espousal of the respondent complainant qua his completing construction of the incomplete RCC slab purchased by the petitioner convict from his wife gets fully blunted, conspicuously also when the property purchased by the accused from the vendor of sale deed embodied in Ext.CX/2 exists in the same building the apposite portion whereof is in the occupation of the wife of the complainant. In aftermath, when the testification of the respondent complainant occurring in his cross-examination where within he has omitted to portray the best evidence comprised in bills/receipts displaying the expenditure incurred by him for completing the construction of the incomplete RCC slab purchased by the petitioner from his wife, for his thereupon sustaining his espousal qua the petitioner convict not defraying to him the expenditure incurred thereon non adduction whereof when stands coagulated with an inference standing erected by this Court on a reading of the testification of his wife occurring in her cross-examination, ensuing sequel there from is qua in his holding Ext.CW-1/B his being not its lawful drawee nor also it can be concluded qua in its issuance the petitioner convict acquiescing qua hers thereupon concerting to liquidate her liability vis.a.vis. the respondent complainant. In aftermath, the respondent complainant does not become a lawful drawee of Ext.CW-1/B nor also on its standing dishonoured any penal in culpability stands attracted qua her, contrarily the statutory presumption arousable from its issuance qua thereupon the petitioner convict acquiescing qua hers concerting to liquidate her contractual liability qua the respondent/complainant, stands wholly effaced. In view of the above, I find merit in this revision, which is accordingly allowed. In sequel, the impugned judgment is set-aside. Fine amount be refunded to the petitioner. Personal and surety bonds stand cancelled and discharged. Record of the learned trial Court be sent back forthwith.