JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant appeal stand directed, against, the verdict rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti, at Kullu, in criminal case No. 140-1 of 2011, whereunder, she returned findings of acquittal, upon, the accused in respect of charges framed, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is an agriculturist. The accused is a businessman, dealing in sale and purchase of green vegetables/seed/potatos, fruits etc. carrying this business in the name and style of M/s Shree Balaji Fruit Co., Fruit and Vegetable Supplies & Commissioner Agents in shop No. 30, Sabji Mandi, Marketing Yard Bhunter, District Kullu. In the course of his business, he purchases and procures business goods from the growers in the districts Kullu and Lahaul & Spiti. In the beginning of September, 2010, he came to the agricultural fields and home of the complainant and asked him to sell his crop of seed potatoes to him for Rs. 650/- per katta (weighing about 50 kg) and to send and consign the same either to him at his Bhunter address or to such other person as recommended by him. The complainant accepted his offer. Thereafter the complainant and one Dinesh sent and consigned 155 gunny bags weighing 50 kg each and 1791 gunny bags weighing about 90 kg each by way of consignment w.e.f. 16.9.2010 to 30.9.2010. The accused made payments of various amounts to the complainant towards part payment for the seed potatoes and after adjusting the said amount a sum of Rs. 2,72,000 was payable by the accused towards the complainant. He therefore, in discharge of said liability issued cheque dated 27.9.2010, bearing TPX 876995 drawn on the saving bank account No. 2216000100012876 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Jari Tehsil and District Kullu, amounting to Rs. 80,000 Ext. C-1, in partial discharge of the liability of Rs. 2,72,000/- The aforesaid cheque, on presentation for encashment, was dishonoured, for "stop payment". The complainant requested the accused to make payment, but to no avail. Ultimately, on 22.2.2011, the complainants issued legal notice Ext. C-4 through registered post as well as UPC calling upon him to make payment of cheque amount. The accused however, instead of making of payment of the cheque amount, gave false reply, through his counsel. 3. The complainant requested the accused to make payment, but to no avail. Ultimately, on 22.2.2011, the complainants issued legal notice Ext. C-4 through registered post as well as UPC calling upon him to make payment of cheque amount. The accused however, instead of making of payment of the cheque amount, gave false reply, through his counsel. 3. The complainant led preliminary evidence, before the learned trial Magistrate, and, thereafter the accused was directed to be summoned, for, his committing, an, offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. After securing the presence of accused, the learned trial Magistrate, put, notice of accusation, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, vis--vis the accused, whereto he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. The complainant, in substantiation of the complaint, hence examined two witnesses. On conclusion of recording of complainants'' evidence, 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. In his defence, the accused tendered, an, application borne in Ext. DW1/A, 5. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of acquittal upon the accused/ respondent herein. 6. The complainant, is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellants/complainants, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial Court standing, not, based on a proper appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by it, of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal, being reversed by this Court, in, the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of acquittal, recorded by the Court below rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of evidence on record, and, 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. The respondent/accused, issued a cheque, vis--vis, the complainant. 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. The respondent/accused, issued a cheque, vis--vis, the complainant. The afore cheque bears No. TPX876995, of, 24.9.2010, and, carries, therein a sum of Rs. 80,000. The afore cheque stood issued against the saving bank account No. 2216000100012876, maintained by the respondent/accused with Punjab National Bank, Jari, Tehsil and District Kullu. The issuance of the aforesaid cheque, as comprised in Ext. C-1, was, vis-vis the sale price, towards peas and potatoes, delivered, by the complainant, at the commercial establishment, of, the respondent/accused. In proof of the averments borne in the complaint, the complainant/appellant has stepped into the witness box, and thereat, he tendered his affidavit, borne in Ext. CW1/A, and, hence during the course of his examination-in-chief, he hence proves the averments borne in the complaint. The complainant/appellant was subjected, to, an incisive cross-examination, by the learned counsel, for respondent/accused, and, in the opening part, of, the cross-examination, of, the complainant, clear candid echoing(s) exist, qua confabulations, rather occurring interse, the, complainant, and, the respondent/accused, qua sale of peas and potatoes, (i) and also echoings occur therein, qua certain quantities of peas and potatoes, owned by the complainant, being dispatched to the commercial premises, of, the respondent/accused. The effect of the afore echoing(s), existing, in the cross-examination, of, the complainant, is qua (i) of the accused acquiescing, vis--vis certain quantities of peas and potatoes, being delivered by the complainant, at the commercial establishment of the respondent/accused, (ii) wherefrom it is apt to conclude, qua the issuance, of, dishonoured negotiable instrument, by the respondent/accused, vis--vis the complainants/appellants, being towards sale(s) thereof, and, it appertaining towards discharge, of, an apt contractual liability. 10. Be that as it may, even if the aforesaid inference(s), are, sparked by the afore acquiescing(s), existing in the cross-examination, of, the complainants, the learned trial Judge yet concluded that with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instrument Act, provision(s) whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "139. 10. Be that as it may, even if the aforesaid inference(s), are, sparked by the afore acquiescing(s), existing in the cross-examination, of, the complainants, the learned trial Judge yet concluded that with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instrument Act, provision(s) whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "139. Presumption in favour of holder-It shallbe presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, or any debt or other liability." (i) rather enjoining qua, hence, the issuance, of, the dishonored negotiable instrument, being towards a legally enforceable or recoverable debt or liability, as arose, from, a, commercial transaction, interse, the petitioner herein, and, the respondent/accused, hence inaptly, and, surmisingly concluded qua rather, the aforesaid presumption standing rebutted; (ii) and also inaptly concluded, qua the respondent being amenable for pronouncement, of, a verdict, of, acquittal. Reiteratedly the aforesaid conclusion, is inaptly drawn, (iii) conspicuously, when the afore statutory presumption, unless rebutted, by cogent evidence, foists, vis--vis, the holder of a cheque, an ex-facie statutory right, for, his hence propagating, qua, its issuance, rather appertaining, vis--vis apt discharge, of, in whole or in part, any debt, or recoverable liability, (iv) when, the aforesaid statutory presumption, is, ex-facie, attracted, vis-vis the complainant, his, being the holder, of, the apt cheque, nonetheless, the aforesaid presumption, is rebuttable,and any conclusion, qua the aforesaid statutory presumption, being rebutted, enjoins hence cogent evidence, qua, therewith, being adduced. (v) The respondent/accused, in striving to rebut the aforesaid statutory presumption, has rather reared simplistic, and, bald contention (vi) however the rearings ,of, bald contentions, are, thoroughly insufficient, for eroding the might and clout, of, the aforesaid statutory presumption. (vii) Even though, he further reared a contention, that, the appellant/complainant, had, from the stolen cheque book, hence made use of some leaves, and had, thereafter foisted a false complaint, against him, (viii) however, even the aforesaid contention, does not warrant, its being accepted, given the respondent/accused, making a feeble denial qua the scribing(s), of, amount(s) thereon, both in words and figures, and, also the signatures, existing thereon, all rather not holding authenticity. However, when he failed to, thereafter, move an appropriate application, before the learned trial Magistrate, for an opt opinion being elicited, from the handwriting expert concerned, thereupon, a conclusion, is begotton, qua a) not only his authentic signatures, existing on cheques, b) also, qua scribing(s), in, words and figures, of, amounts thereon, being in his hand. Corollary whereof is that the aforesaid propagation, is, rendered meritless, and also hence the afore statutory presumption, rather remaining un-rebutted. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has not appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner and the analysis of the learned trial Court hence suffers from a perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non-appreciation of evidence on record. 12. There is merit in the appeal, and the same is allowed. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The accused/respondent be produced before this Court, for his being heard on quantum of sentence, on 22.10.2018.