JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands directed, by the respondent/complainant, against the judgment rendered by the learned Adll. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli, District Solan, H.P. in complaint No. 139/3 of 2018/16, whereupon, he returned findings of acquittal, upon the accused/convict, in respect of charges framed, under, Section 138, of, the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that in the month of January, 2015, accused borrowed a sumof Rs.2,50,000/- from the complainant for his business/ contractual work and in order to discharge his liability towards the complainant, the respondent/accused issued cheque bearing No.871328, amounting to Rs. 2,50,000, dated 9.12.2015, drawn on Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Dharampur, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan with the assurance that the said cheque under all circumstances would be honoured and encashed on its presentation in the bank. As per the assurance given by the accused, the complainant presented the said cheque in the bank for its encashment and the bankers of the complainant informed the complainant vide memo dated 23.12.2015, alongwith memo of the respondent bank dated 21.12.2015 that the said cheque has been dishonoured due to insufficient funds in the account of the respondent/accused. The respondent/accused was informed about the same by the complainant but he flatly refused to make the payment and thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice to the respondent/accused through his counsel on 12.1.2016 but despite the service of notice, the respondent failed to pay the cheque amount within the stipulated period. With these averments the complainant seeks that the respondents/accused be tried and punished in accordance with law. 3. On perusing the preliminary evidence, adduced by the complainant, the Court, of, the learned JMIC, Kasauli, took cognizance, against the accused, and, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation was put to the accused, on 31.1.2017, qua commission of an offence, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereto he pleaded, not guilty, and claimed trial. The complainant in support of his contention, examined himself, as, CW-1, and, also examined CW-2 Harish Sharma, Branch Manager, Jogindra Central Bank, Parwanoo. After closure of complainant s evidence, the statement of the accused, was recorded, under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, in the case, and, thereafter examined, one witness, in defence. 4. After closure of complainant s evidence, the statement of the accused, was recorded, under Section 313 of Cr. P.C., wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, in the case, and, thereafter examined, one witness, in defence. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of acquittal upon the accused. 5. The complainant/appellant, is aggrieved, by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Counsel appearing, for the appellant, 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. 6. 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 standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation by it, of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating 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. The cheque borne in Ext. CW1/B, carries a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, and, all the scribings thereon in words and figures, are not, contested to be not authored, by the accused. The complainant, while stepping into witness box, and, during the course, of, his examination-in-chief, tendered into evidence, his affidavit, borne in Ext. CW1/A, with clear echoing borne therein qua, upon, presentation, of, the afore cheque, for its encashment, it, through memo, of, 23.12.2015, wherewith stood accompanied an endorsement, hence displaying, qua owning to insufficient funds, in the accounts, of the accused, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, its presentation, by the complainant, hence before the banker concerned, the latter declining to honour it. The afore solemn affirmation, embodied in Ext. CW1/A, was apparently, (i) given the counsel for the accused, not protesting, vis-a-vis, the afore exhibition mark, being made thereon, hence acquiesced, by the learned defence counsel, conspicuously, qua its veracity. The afore solemn affirmation, embodied in Ext. CW1/A, was apparently, (i) given the counsel for the accused, not protesting, vis-a-vis, the afore exhibition mark, being made thereon, hence acquiesced, by the learned defence counsel, conspicuously, qua its veracity. Furthermore, even during, the course of cross-examination, of the complainant, by the learned defence counsel, only, a mere suggestion stood meted to CW-1, rather holding unfoldments, a) qua therethrough only a frail attempt hence being made, by the respondent/accused, to rebut, the statutory presumption, embodied in Section 149, of the Negotiable Instrument Act, qua issuance of cheque, borne in Ext. CW1/B, being not towards, any subsisting, and, enforceable contractual or legally liability interse both, b) yet the afore suggestion, also stood dispelled, and, rebutted by the complainant, and, when no further evidence, stands adduced, by the accused, to succor his espousal, vis-a-vis, there being misuse, of Ext. CW1/B, by the complainant, (b) given the cheque, borne in Ext.CW1/B, standing issued, merely as a security, and, despite liquidation, of all, the borrowings, made by the accused, from the complainant, rather the complainant, misusing the cheque, borne in Ext. CW1/B, (c) and, also when the best evidence in respect thereof, stood constituted, in receipts, bearing out the afore espousal, vis-a-vis, the apt liquidation, being made, also remained rather unadduced, (d) thereupon, the apt conclusion therefrom, is qua, the statutory presumption, as embodied in Section 149 of the Act, remaining intact, and, also acquiring conclusivity. 9. Nonetheless, despite the exhibition mark, without any denial being permitted, hence, by the accused, to be made, on, affidavit, borne in Ext. CW1/A, and, it carrying the afore echoing, vis-a-vis, the dishonour, of, Ext. CW1/B, hence occurring, upon, its presentation before the banker concerned, (a) and when thereafter also the learned counsel, omitted, to rebut the efficacy, of, the afore recitals, borne in Ext. CW1/A, (b) nor when he thereafter concerted to elicit, from, the banker concerned, the requisite endorsement, with echoing, therein, vis-a-vis, upon presentation, of, the cheque, before the banker concerned, it being not for wants, of, sufficient funds, in the accounts, of the accused, hence being declined to be honoured. 10. Consequently, when rather therethrough, the, learned trial Magistrate, was enjoined to make, an order of conviction, upon the accused, it merely, for the complainant, failing to adduce, the apt discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, upon presentation of Ext. 10. Consequently, when rather therethrough, the, learned trial Magistrate, was enjoined to make, an order of conviction, upon the accused, it merely, for the complainant, failing to adduce, the apt discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, upon presentation of Ext. CW1/B, before the banker concerned, hence occurring, within the statutory period, (i) and also, upon his failing to adduce, the discharging evidence, vis-a-vis, upon its presentation, before the banker concerned, it, for want of sufficient funds, hence thereat, in the accounts of the accused, it rather being declined, to be honoured, and, the afore evidence, rather being comprised, in the apposite endorsement, being tendered, and, exhibited, whereas, the afores remaining unadduced, the learned trial Judge, rather made an order, of, acquittal (a) despite Ext.CW1/A remaining uncontested, and its containing recitals, qua upon its presentation before the banker concerned, it being evidently declined to be honoured, for want of sufficient funds, occurring thereat, in the account of the accused. The afore reason, is outside, the domain of the afore un-contested factum, as stood embodied, in the affidavit, sworn by the complainant, and, tendered into evidence, during, the, examination-in-chief, of, the complainant and, when echoings are borne therein, for, meteing tenacity vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum (b) besides when the afore relevant echoing, borne therein, also remain hence for reasons aforestated, omitted, to be rebutted, by the complainant, by the latter meteing suggestions, in consonance therewith, nor when thereafter, the, requisite records, from the banker concerned, remained un-strived, to be elicited, by the accused (c) thereupon the afore echoing, borne in Ext. CW1/A, hence for want of the afore recoursings, by the complainant, rather constituted, adduction of, apt discharging evidence, (d) qua upon, presentation of cheque, embodied in Ext. CW1/B, it being aptly declined, to be honoured. The natural corollary thereof, is qua with the afore requisite evidence, hence being adduced, for therethrough holding the charge against the accused, and, rather it stands erroneously concluded, by the learned trial Court (e) that for want, of tendering of, and, for want, of, exhibition marks, being made on the relevant endorsement, the accused, deserving, qua a verdict of the acquittal, being pronounced upon him. 11. 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 apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record by the learned appellate Court, 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 5.8.2019. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.