JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant revision, is, directed against the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both the learned Courts below, whereby the accused was convicted and consequently sentenced, for his committing, an offence punishable, under Section 138, of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. The facts relevant to this case are that the complainant is the Agent of Life Insurance Corporation of India and also of Post Office Savings. In the year 2002 and 2004, the accused had purchased the life insurance policy of his life and also of his daughter’s life from the complainant. The accused had borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant in the month of December, 2007 and in lieu of that he issued a cheque bearing No. 878967 dated 23.6.2008 for Rs. 2,00,000/- in discharge of his said liability towards the complainant. The complainant presented said cheque before Punjab National Bank Moti Bazar for collection of the cheque amount on 27.6.2008 from where the cheque was sent for collection to the banker of the accused, but the same was sent for collection to the banker of the accused, but the same was dishonoured on the ground of “Exceeded Arrangements”. The memo dated 30.6.2008 was issued to this effect. The said memo was received by the complainant on 1.7.2008. After receipt of the cheque and the memo, the complainant through his Counsel issued legal demand notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act to the accused dated 7.7.2008 through registered post which was not intentionally received by the accused. While issuing the cheque the accused was fully aware and know that there was no sufficient funds in his bank account and he has committed fraud with the complainant. Therefore, it has been prayed that legal action be taken against the accused. The learned trial Court after recording the preliminary evidence summoned the accused and directed to furnish personal and surety bonds, which he had furnished. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was put to the accused, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In proof of the notice of accusation, the complainant examined himself as CW-1. Notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act was put to the accused, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. In proof of the notice of accusation, the complainant examined himself as CW-1. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the trial Court, wherein the accused claimed innocence and pleaded false implication in the case and examined four witnesses and tendered documents in evidence. 3. On an appraisal of evidence on record, both the learned Courts below, recorded findings of conviction against the accused/appellant herein. 4. The accused/appellant, is, aggrieved by the concurrent findings, of conviction recorded, by both the Courts below. The learned Counsel appearing, for the accused/appellant, has concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction recorded, by both the Courts below, standing not based on a proper appreciation, by them, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs’ standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by them, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of conviction being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of acquittal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant, has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction recorded, by both the learned Courts below, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 6. 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. 7. The learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, has made a vociferous submission, before this Court, that there is complete want of evidence, in display of the amount borne, in dishonoured negotiable instrument, being hence tendered towards, any legally enforceable debt or liability, (i) arising or existing, interse, the petitioner/convict, and, the respondent/complainant. Consequently, he further submits, that hence this Court, being coaxed to draw a conclusion, qua the concurrent verdicts pronounced, upon, the convict/petitioner, warranting their reversal. 8. Consequently, he further submits, that hence this Court, being coaxed to draw a conclusion, qua the concurrent verdicts pronounced, upon, the convict/petitioner, warranting their reversal. 8. The afore-referred submission, made before this Court by the learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, is extremely fragile, for the reason; a) despite the complainant in her testification, borne in her examination-in-chief, making an echoing, therein, although bearing absolute concurrence with all the averments, existing in the complaint, b) AND also, thereafter, even on hers’ being subjected, to an ordeal of a scathing cross-examination, by the learned defence counsel, rather thereat suggestions, being meted, vis-à-vis her, with, clear candid bespeakings therein, qua the accused, at his shop, making an entreaty upon her, for lending money to him (c ) besides, thereafter, also during the course, of, the complainant, being subjected to cross-examination, by the learned counsel for the respondent, hence echoings emerge from her, qua upon the sums of money, asked to be lent to him, the apt sums being delivered, rather, at the house of the respondent/complainant. The aforesaid affirmative suggestions, meted to the respondent/complainant, on hers’ being subjected, to an ordeal, of, an inexorable, rigorous cross-examination, whereto, affirmative echoings emanated, from the complainant, obviously constrain, an inference of theirs’ hence comprising potent incriminatory evidence, against, the petitioner/convict. Even though, the learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, has prima-facie succeeded, in rendering rather untruthful, the trite factum qua from a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- being withdrawn, from, the accounts of her husband, inveracity, vis-à-vis the aforesaid factum, hence arising from, rather the accounts of her husband, wherefrom, the withdrawal of 1,00,000/- occurred, rather standing previously closed, in the year 2004. However, effect thereof, rather only impinging, upon the accused, rendering an untruthful version, vis-à-vis the source, of, a part of the sums, of money, borne in the apt negotiable instrument concerned, (i) whereas the predominant effects, of, the aforesaid potent incriminatory material, given its directly bearing connectivity, vis-à-vis the trite factum, of the petitioner/convict, making borrowings, of the entire amount, embodied in the negotiable instrument, from the respondent/complainant, b) pre-eminently obviously remains uneroded, (ii) whereopn it is to be concluded qua the petitioner/convict hence acquiescing, qua the amount, comprised in, the, negotiable instrument, being towards a legally enforceable debt, or other liability, as existed or arose interse both. 9. 9. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, while subjecting, the complainant to cross-examination, has also put affirmative suggestions vis-à-vis her, embodying therein, the trite factum, of the scribings borne, in the dishonoured cheque, being in the handwritings, of the petitioner/convict. Concomitantly, effect thereof, when is coagulated, with, the afore-referred incriminatory evidence, existing on record, against, the petitioner/convict, is qua this Court being constrained, to make a firm inference, dehors the complainant not making any echoing, vis-à-vis the date, whereon the apposite lendings, occurred interse both, yet the date scribed in the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being readable, as well as, comprising, the apposite date, whereon, the relevant transaction occurred. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned appellate Court, does not, suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 11. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed. The Judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. It be forthwith implemented. Records be sent back forthwith.