JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed by the complainant/appellant, against, the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (I), Palampur, District Kangra, H.P., upon, Crl. Complaint No.97-III/2008. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case, are that the complaint has been filed by the complainant through his Special Power of attorney. It is averred that accused entered into an agreement to purchase land from the complainant, situated in Mohan Chowki, Tehsil Palampur, and, the complainant executed, Sale deed of 22 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land being General Power of Attorney of owners and paid the sale consideration through cheque No. 230743 of 3.5.2007 drawn at Dena Bank, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, for a sum of Rs.15,80,000/-. It is further averred that when the aforesaid cheque was presented in the bank, i.e. Punjab National Bank, Palampur on 29.5.2007, for collection, the said cheque was sent by the aforesaid bank to the banker of the accused, but the accused intentionally stopped the payment, and, telephonically informed the complainant that he is in short of money and requested the complainant not to present the cheque in the bank, but at that time, the cheque had already been presented in the bank and the same was returned with memo with the remarks “payment is stopped by the drawer”. It is further averred that after waiting for some time, when the accused did not pay the aforesaid amount, despite repeated requests, the complainant, again presented the aforesaid cheque in his bank, i.e. Punjab National Bank, on 16.8.2007, but again the said cheque was returned with memo by the banker of accused with remarks “payment stopped” by the drawer and the same was received by the complainant on 25.8.2007 from his banker. It is further averred that thereafter accused was requested through notice dated 17.9.2007, but he accused in connivance with the postal Department has refused to receive the registered A/D and ultimately the said notice was received un-served on 28.9.2007. It is further averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, as the accused has not paid the cheque amount to the complainant, hence, the present complainant. 3. After presentation of the complaint, the complainant's preliminary evidence was recorded, and, upon, a prima facie case hence being found, against, the accused, he/it was hence summoned. It is further averred that despite repeated requests of the complainant, as the accused has not paid the cheque amount to the complainant, hence, the present complainant. 3. After presentation of the complaint, the complainant's preliminary evidence was recorded, and, upon, a prima facie case hence being found, against, the accused, he/it was hence summoned. On his/its appearance before the learned trial Court, a notice of accusation, was, put to the accused by the learned trial Court, for his/its committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In proof of his case, the complainant examined 1 witness. On conclusion of recording, of, the complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, besides it examined one witness in its defence. 4. On an appraisal, of, the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal qua the accused/respondent herein. 5. The complainant, stands, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded qua the accused/respondent. He, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation 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 acquittal, warranting reversal, by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent herein, has with considerable force and vigour, also contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. 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. 8. Cheque comprised in Ex. C-2, carrying therein a sum of Rs.15,80,000/-, stood issued by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant. However, the afore cheque, as, unraveled by Ex. C-3, stood dishonoured by the banker(s) concerned. Subsequent thereto, a statutory notice borne in Ex. C-5, hence stood served upon the accused. 8. Cheque comprised in Ex. C-2, carrying therein a sum of Rs.15,80,000/-, stood issued by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant. However, the afore cheque, as, unraveled by Ex. C-3, stood dishonoured by the banker(s) concerned. Subsequent thereto, a statutory notice borne in Ex. C-5, hence stood served upon the accused. The complainant adduced evidence qua the dishonoured negotiable instrument, standing, issued in discharge, of, an apt contractual liability, arising, from it rather comprising the outstanding sum of sale consideration, payable, though, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the execution, of, the apt sale deed inter se the complainant, and, the respondent/accused. The crucial document, for firmly establishing, qua the afore cheque hence carrying the afore sums of money, and, it rather standing, issued by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant, towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, rather stands comprised in Ex.DW1/A. The valid and due execution of EX.DW1/A inter se the signatories thereof, has, remained undisputed. However, it is drawn on 16.7.2008, whereas, the sale deed towards liquidation, of, the purported remaining sale consideration, rather stood executed in the year 2007. Even, through, the execution of the sale deed, occurs a year prior, to, the drawing of Ex.DW1/A, however, the reference made in clause No.2 thereof, wherein a sum of Rs.15 lacs, stands, recited, to, stand tendered/liquidated by the accused, vis-a-vis, complainant, towards apt liquidations, of, the outstanding sale consideration, in respect, of, the apt sale deed, execution whereof, hence, occurred in the year 2007, would, yet be applicable, vis-a-vis, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, which stood issued, earlier thereto, on, 3.5.2007, only upon (a) the reference, occurring in clause (2), of, Ex.DW1/A, qua handing over of a sum of Rs.15 lacs, by the respondent/accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant, being readable, as an admission, and, specifically appertaining to the dishonoured negotiable instrument; (b) and, there also occurring a marked explicit echoing, that the afore tendered sum, of, Rs.15 lacs, hence, occurring through the mode of issuance, of, a negotiable instrument. However, a, reading of clause (2) borne in Ex.DW1/A, clause whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “2. However, a, reading of clause (2) borne in Ex.DW1/A, clause whereof stand extracted hereinafter: “2. That the party NO.2 has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- as interest and to waive off the claim of party No.1 of 13% as mentioned in condition NO.15 of the agreement, as such the party No.2 will pay a sum of Rs.1,12,30,000/- to the party No.1 and out of which amount of Rs.15,00,000/- has been paid to the first party by the 2nd Party in the presence of witnesses.” (c) unravels rather a simplicitor narration qua a sum of Rs.15 lacs standing paid by the respondent/accused, to, the complainant/appellant, in, the presence of the witnesses; (d) obviously hence there from no inference, can be gatherable, that the afore transaction being made through, the mode of issuance, of, a cheque, conspicuously also when the drawing of Ex.DW1/A, occurs, much subsequent to the issuance, of, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, (e) thereupon, there cannot be any inference of any admission, being, rather mobilized there from qua the apt dishonoured negotiable instrument, evidently, issued prior to the drawing of Ex.DW1/A, rather appertaining, to, the dishonoured cheque. In aftermath, the reference in clause (2), of, Ex.DW1/A, cannot be capitalized in any manner, by the appellant/complainant. 9. Be that as it may, even if, there, is, a communication in clause (2) of Ex.DW1/A, qua, the remaining outstanding sums of sale consideration hence remaining un-liquidated by the accused, vis-a-vis, complainant/appellant, (I) yet there from, also no inference, is, hence drawable qua rather the dishonoured negotiable instrument, falling within ambit thereof, unless (a) in part satisfaction thereof a specific narration, standing borne therein, and, qua, the, sum reflected, in, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being specifically included in the sums, of, outstanding/un-liquidated amounts, of, sale consideration, (b) especially when hence it was gatherable there from, that, on adding the sum, borne in the dishonoured negotiable instrument, the outstanding sums, as, stand reflected in clause (1) of Ex.DW1/A, being computable at Rs.1,03,80,000/-. However, there occurs no afore reference in clause (1), vis-a-vis, the extant dishonoured negotiable instrument, (c) thereupon, it is inevitable to conclude, that, at the stage of drawing of Ex.DW1/A, the accused/respondent, and the complainant/appellant, rather settling the contested un-liquidated sums of sale consideration, and, corrolary thereof, is, qua hence the sum borne, in the dishonoured negotiable instrument rather standing hence excluded, from, the apt enforceable contractual liability, as, re-agreed to be liquidated, in, the manner, as, enshrined in Ex.DW1/A. 10. The upshot of the afore discussion is that the conclusion as drawn by the learned trial Court that the issuance of the dishonoured negotiable instrument by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainant, not being towards legally enforceable debt, hence, warrants validation. 11. 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 there from the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court, does not suffer, from, a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending application also stands disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.