JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner/convict, upon, being convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. III, Una, in complaint No. 249-1-2001/125-II2001 RBT No. 249-1-2001/127-II/06-2001, vis-a-vis, his committing an offence, constituted under the provisions of Section 138, read, with Section 141 of the Act, and also, in consequence whereto, he stood sentenced, to undergo simple imprisonment, for a period of six months, and, also stood directed, to pay compensation, borne in the sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, to the complainant, (a) obviously stood aggrieved therefrom, and hence preferred, an appeal, before the learned Sessions Judge, Una. The complainant also standing aggrieved, vis-a-vis, the afore compensation, assessed qua it, by the learned trial Magistrate, also proceeded to rear an appeal, therefrom hence before the learned appellate Court. The appeal preferred by the complainant, stood accepted, whereas, the appeal preferred by the petitioner/convict, stood dismissed, by the learned appellate Court. Through the instant criminal revision, the convict challenges the concurrently recorded pronouncement, of, conviction against him, by both the learned Courts below, and, also challenges the acceptance of the appeal, preferred before it, by the complainant, wherethrough, hence, the compensation amount, initially assessed, vis-a-vis, the complainant by the learned trial Magistrate, and, borne in a sum of Rs. 2, 50,000/-, stood enhanced in, appeal, to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Since both the criminal revision petitions are inter-linked, involving common questions of law and facts, hence, both are amenable, for, a common verdict, being pronounced thereon. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a Finance Corporation and running a business of hire purchase. The parties entered into hire purchase agreement appertaining to vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No. HP-20-0725, in lieu of his liability against the complainant the accused issued a cheque No. 175081 dated 8.10.2001 for Rs. 1,75,000- in favour of the complainant of his account maintained with United Commercial Bank, (in short UCO Bank) Swarghat, District Bilaspur. The complainant presented the said cheque to its banker i.e. Canara Bank, Una, for collection but the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and was returned back by the Canara Bank in original vide letter dated 30.10.2001 alongwith return memo dated 20.10.2001. The complainant presented the said cheque to its banker i.e. Canara Bank, Una, for collection but the same was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in the account of the accused and was returned back by the Canara Bank in original vide letter dated 30.10.2001 alongwith return memo dated 20.10.2001. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice dated 3.11.2001 upon the accused through his counsel through registered post asking him to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days and despite that the accused has not paid the amount till today. 3. Accordingly, the complainant preferred, a complaint, under Section 138 read with Section 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, against, the accused. On the basis of preliminary evidence, led by the complainant, cognizance was taken against the accused. On appearance of accused in Court, notice of accusation was put to him, for the said offence whereto he pleaded not guilty. Five witnesses were examined by the complainant, in support, of his contention. After the evidence of the complainant standing adduced, the accused, was examined under Section 3134 Cr. P.C., wherein he pleaded his innocence, and, pleaded false implication. In support, of, his defence, the accused has examined three witnesses. 3. On an appraisal of evidence, on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction against the accused. 4. The accused/appellant is aggrieved, by the judgment of conviction recorded, by, both the learned Courts below. The learned Counsel appearing, for the appellant, has concertedly, and vigorously contended qua the findings of conviction, as recorded, by the learned Courts below, 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 conviction, being reversed by this Court in the exercise, of its, appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs being hence replaced by findings of acquittal. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has, with considerable force and vigour, contended that the findings of conviction, recorded by the Court below, standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any 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. 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 cheque borne in Ext. C-1, is not, contested by the petitioner/convict, to not carry thereon, his valid signatures, nor he raised any contest, vis-a-vis, the scribing, of, all words, and, figures hence borne thereon. The afore cheque, stood, through memo, borne in Ext. CW1/B, returned to the holder thereof, (a) visibly for want of sufficient funds, occurring in the accounts of the petitioner/convict, in contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, its presentation, before the banker concerned, (b) thereupon, prima-facie, the holder of the cheque, borne in Ext. C-1, is enabled to draw the apposite legal succor, from the provisions, borne in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter: "Presumption in favour of holder:- It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque ofl the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." (c) an incisive reading, whereof, unveil, qua hence a rebuttable statutory presumption, being attached, vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque, qua his holding it, in discharge, of, in whole, or in part, of, any debt or any other liability. Since, as aforestated, the afore statutory presumption, assigned vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque, is a rebuttable presumption, (d) thereupon the learned defence counsel, during, the course, of, subjecting, CW-3, to an ordeal, of an exacting and, rigorous cross-examination, proceeded to put suggestions, to him, a) vis-a-vis, Ext. C-1, being issued, merely as a security, b) and it being misused by the complainant, despite, his liquidating hence all borrowings, made by him, from, the respondent/complainant. The afore suggestion, as meted to CW-3, in his cross-examination, stood denied, and, are also merely bald suggestions, remaining un-accompanied, by any statement of accounts, bearing any contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the issuance, and, presentation of cheque, Ext. The afore suggestion, as meted to CW-3, in his cross-examination, stood denied, and, are also merely bald suggestions, remaining un-accompanied, by any statement of accounts, bearing any contemporaniety, vis-a-vis, the issuance, and, presentation of cheque, Ext. C-1, (c) and with the clear graphic disclosures borne therein, vis-a-vis, despite the afore liquidation, by the accused, of, all his borrowings, from the complainant, (d) rather, the afore cheque, standing issued, merely, as a security, and, on its presentation, by the banker concerned, who hence declined to honour, it, there was, thereat hence, no existing or subsisting any legally enforceable debt or any other liability, interse, him and the respondent/complainant, (e) rather, thereupon Ext. C-1 being misused and, thereupon the afore statutory presumption, assigned vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque, also coming to be rebutted. The sequel, of, the afore omission, or non-existence of the afore best evidence, for hence succoring, the afore espousal, of the petitioner/convict, hence garners an inference, qua the afore-referred statutory presumption, as embodied in Section 139 of the Act, remaining intact, and, obviously, it, acquiring conclusivity. 8. Dehors the above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/convict, has made a vociferous espousal, before this Court, that with the respondent/complainant, being engaged, in the business of money lending, thereupon in conformity, vis-a-vis, the provisions, borne in Section 9, of, the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: "9. Further registration and licensing of money-lender after expiry of period forl which licence was cancelled- A moneylender may, after the termination of the period for which his licence has been cancelled, apply for registration and for the grant of a license, to the Collector who shall, on his furnishing such particulars as may be prescribed, register his name on payment of a fee of Rs. 10/-; and shall grant him a licence for such period, in such form and subject to such conditions and on payment of such fees, as maybe prescribed." (a) wherein the afore statutory coinage is/are assigned, the, connotations, vis-a-vis, its including hence within its domain, any person or firm, as the respondent/complainant, obviously is (b) thereupon there was also a further statutory necessity, for adherence vis-a-vis, the contemplation, occurring in Section 3, of, the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, provisions whereof stands extracted hereinafter: "3. Suits and applications by moneylenders barred, unless money-lender is registered and licensed: Notwithdtanding anything contained in any other enactment for the time being in force a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan, or an application by money-lender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall, after the commencement of this Act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender, at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of the application for execution, or at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the application for execution- (a) is registered: and (i) holds a valid license, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed; or (ii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under section 10, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application for execution is presented; or (b) if he is not already a registered and licensed money-lender, satisfied the court that he has applied to the Collector to be registered and licensed and that such application is pending; Provided that in such a case, the suit or application shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the money-lender for registration and grant of license pending before the Collector is finally disposed of." (c) conspicuously, qua the respondent/complainant firm, being validly registered, for hence being facilitated, to legitimately advance loans to the petitioner/convict, and with the afore provisions, also mandating qua, for, the afore want, of, the requisite statutory registration, (d) thereupon, the concomitant thereto statutory bar, a contemplated under Section 3, of the Registration Act, against a suit being hence brought, by the money lenders, for recovery of loan advanced, to the borrowers concerned, standing squarely attracted, (e) thereupon the petitioner/convict, being required, to be acquitted, by this Court. 9. 9. For determining, the vigor of the afore espousal, an allusion is to be made, to the deposition, as exists in the cross-examination, of CW-3, for hence therefrom rather determining, vis-a-vis, the respondent/company, holding the requisite registration or not, (a) though, in the testification of CW-3, as occurs, during the course, of, the learned defence counsel, holding him to cross-examination, rather unveilings, hence emerge (b) qua the requisite suggestion, vis-a-vis, the respondent/company, not holding, the requisite registration, rather being put to him, yet a reply in the dis-affirmative thereto, rather emanating from CW-3, and, his thereafter, also volunteering to state, that, he has not, brought, the requisite documents in Court, as, appertaining to the requisite registration, as they remained, un-summoned or unrequisitioned. The afore meteing, of, dis-affirmative answers, by CW-3, to the afore suggestions meted, to him by learned defence counsel, during, the course of the latter, subjecting him to cross-examine, does, prima-facie, garners strengthened vigor, for, hence negating the accused's afore espousal vis-a-vis, its vigor, (c) and when vigor thereof, would rather become blunted, only, upon, the accused/convict, thereafter, seeking through the aegis of the Court, elicitations, of, all the records, appertaining to the registration, of, the complainant/firm. However, with the learned defence counsel, rather omitting to recourse, the afore endeavors, and, whereupon the afore omissions, rather beget, an inference, qua the afore negativing, by CW-3, of, the afore suggestions put to him, by the learned defence counsel, qua the respondent/complainant, not holding, the requisite registration, hence carrying the apt uneroded tenacity, and, vigor. 10. Be that as it may, even otherwise, the statutory bar, contemplated in Section 3 of the Act, works only against institution, of, suits, for, recovery, of money, hence by the lenders, against the borrowers, and visibly does not, oust the mandate, of the relevant provisions, of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as no apt statutory provision, is/are borne, in the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherethrough, the bar contemplated in Section 3, of, the Act, stands revered and, meted deference. In sequel, no capitalization, can be drawn, by the learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, from, the statutory contemplation, borne, in Section 3, of, the afore Act. 11. In sequel, no capitalization, can be drawn, by the learned counsel, for the petitioner/convict, from, the statutory contemplation, borne, in Section 3, of, the afore Act. 11. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below, have 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 perversity or absurdity of misappreciation, and, non-appreciation of evidence on record. 12. Consequently, there is no merit in the instant revision petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. The Judgments impugned before this Court are maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.