JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the complainant/appellant herein, against, the verdict of acquittal pronounced, vis-a-vis, the accused, qua the charge framed under Section 138 of, the Negotiable Instruments Act, hence, by the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the complainant/appellant herein is a statutory corporate Body, constituted under the H.P. State Cooperative Society Act, 1968, carrying on the business of Banking, and, having its Head Office at The Mall, Shimla, and, its one Branch at Shalli Bazar, Theog. It is averred that vide letter dated September 23, 2004, Ex.CW1/A, permission was granted to Branch Manager State Cooperative Bank Theog to present the complaint and to engage the counsel for the purpose and to sign and verify the pleadings and do the necessary acts for conducting the case. It is averred that the respondent/accused approached the complainant Bank for sanctioning of loan for purchase of private truck and on his request the complainant Bank had sanctioned a loan in favour of the accused. It is averred that in lieu of the liquidation of the aforesaid loan amount,. The accused had issued two cheques, Ex.CW1/J bearing No. 1721278, dated July 20, 2004, in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, and, Ex.CW1/J, dated July 26,2004, in the sum of Rs.2,64,000/-, against her saving Bank Account No. 6888. It is averred that when the said cheques were presented for encashment, on three different dates that is July 29, 2004, August, 14, 2004, and, December, 1, 2004, the said cheques were returned by the Bank, vide memos Ex.CW1/B to Ex. CW1/D and Ex.CW1/K to Ex. CW1/M, respectively with remarks “insufficient funds”. It is averred that the complainant, lastly, got issued a legal notice Ex.CW1/E, on December 14, 2004, through registered posts, postal receipt is Ex.CW1/F. When the accused has failed to make the payment of cheques, mentioned hereinabove, the complaint was presented before the learned trial Magistrate on January, 14, 2005. 3. The learned trial Court, on, finding sufficient material on record, to proceed against the accused, hence, issued notice to the accused. On his appearance before the learned trial Court, notice of accusation, for, his committing, an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stood put to him. In proof of the case, the complainant examined two witnesses. The learned trial Court, on, finding sufficient material on record, to proceed against the accused, hence, issued notice to the accused. On his appearance before the learned trial Court, notice of accusation, for, his committing, an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, stood put to him. In proof of the case, the complainant examined two witnesses. 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 she claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 4. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction against the accused/respondent herein. In an appeal preferred therefrom, by the accused/respondent herein, before, the learned Sessions Judge concerned, the latter, reversed the apposite findings of conviction, and, sentence recorded in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court, and, therethrough rather acquitted the accused/respondent, vis-a-vis, charged offence. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant herein, has, concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, standing, not based on a proper appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by him, 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, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, rather standing based, on, a mature and balanced appreciation, by him, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. It is not contested inter se the appellant, and, the respondent/accused, qua the latter making borrowings, from, the appellant-bank. The dishonoured negotiable instruments, respectively borne in Ex.CW1/J, and, in Ex. CW1/K, both respectively, carry sums, of, Rs.2,00,000/-, and, Rs.2,64,000/-, besides the issuance(s), of, both the afore exhibits, is, within a hiatus, of, a day. The appellant-bank, is, holder of the afore exhibits, and, hence it is statutory leveraged, to draw, the benefits of, the, statutory presumption, as, embodied in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “139. The appellant-bank, is, holder of the afore exhibits, and, hence it is statutory leveraged, to draw, the benefits of, the, statutory presumption, as, embodied in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- “139. Presumption in favour of holder.—It shall be 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, of any debt or other liability.” However, the afore presumption is rebuttable, and, even though, the accused has not stepped into the witness box, for adducing, the, apt discharging evidence, for therethroughs, hers rebutting the afore statutory presumption, (a) nonetheless, the accused, through, her defence counsel, has, made strivings, to, dishcarge the onus, of, rebutting the afore statutory presumption, leveraged, vis-a-vis, the appellant-bank, (b) and, hence it has to be discerned, from, the suggestions, meted to CW- 1, during the latter's cross-examination, qua, the apt onus being efficaciously discharged, rather by, the respondent/accused. A perusal of the testification, of, CW- 1 discloses (c) qua his failing to mete any candid or forthright answer, vis-a-vis, a suggestion put him, qua the precise date of issuance, of, cheque book, hence, vis-avis, the accused/respondent, and, wherefrom, evidently the afore cheques emanated, (d) and, also his denying a suggestion qua the afore cheques being issued blank. A perusal of the testification, of, CW- 1 discloses (c) qua his failing to mete any candid or forthright answer, vis-a-vis, a suggestion put him, qua the precise date of issuance, of, cheque book, hence, vis-avis, the accused/respondent, and, wherefrom, evidently the afore cheques emanated, (d) and, also his denying a suggestion qua the afore cheques being issued blank. Dehors the afore, and, conspicuously CW-1 though has also made echoings qua the bank receiving completely filled in cheques, from, the respondent/accused, and yet when CW-1 acquiesces to a suggestion, qua the accused/respondent, being illiterate, (e) thereupon, the effects of the afore suggestions, and, the afore answers meted thereto, by CW-1 and CW-2, is qua, an imminent inference, standing therefrom mobilised, qua, the propagation, of, the appellant-bank, qua the afore cheques, standing issued, as security, for hence hers ensuring the liquidation(s), of, the borrowings, made by her, rather standing falsified, (f) and, also given the acquiesced illiteracy, of, the respondent/accused, thereupon also the contents of the afore exhibits, are inferred, to stand, filled up, by some official(s) of the bank, (g) and, given, the lack, of, renderings, of, the clear, and, candid echoing, hence, by the CWs, vis-a-vis, the date of issuance of cheque book, wherefrom the afore cheques hence emanated, also sparking suspicion, vis-a-vis, rather the appellant-bank, at the time of making, of, lendings to the respondent/accused, theirs, obtaining, blank cheques, from her, and, thereafter, theirs within, a gap of, a, day inter se, the, issuance(s) of negotiable instruments, hence, though, officials of the bank concerned, (h) rather suo moto filling, up, all the contents thereof, or, merely therethrough, the, bank, ensuring the quickest, and, promptest realization, of, the borrowings made, from it, by the respondent/accused. Furthermore, it has to be also concluded qua the afore cheques, rather being not issued, as security rather theirs coming, to be mis-used, by the appellant-bank. Furthermore, it has to be also concluded qua the afore cheques, rather being not issued, as security rather theirs coming, to be mis-used, by the appellant-bank. In addition also, it is apt, to, formidably conclude, qua, the appellant-bank, even after, the respondent/accused, had, committed defaults in liquidation, of the facility, of, an, amortized loan, purveyed to her, by the appellant/bank, (i) rather the latter being enjoined to ensure, that, the amounts, carried in the dishonoured negotiable instruments, bearing commensuration, with, the defaulted loan installments, (j) whereas, the afore evidence, is, neither forthcoming nor stands adduced, (k) thereupon, the, stark inevitable conclusion, as ensues therefrom, is, qua the appellant-bank, rather misusing the afore blank cheques, and, also it in breach of the amortized loan facility, hence, availed by the respondent/accused, rather beyond the defaulted loan amounts, arbitrarily proceeding to, through, the afore exhibits, make strivings, to, untenably immediately hence secure the realization(s), of, the entire apposite borrowings, through, the afore suo moto filled exhibits, hence, from the accused/respondent. In aftermath, it is concluded that through the afore elicitations, as, made by the learned defence counsel, from, the afore Cws, hence, the accused/respondent, rather successfully discharging, the, onus of rebutting the statutory presumption leveraged, vis-a-vis, appellant-bank. 8. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned Sessions Judge concerned, 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 Sessions Judge concerned, does not, suffer from, any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane evidence on record. 9. Consequently, the instant appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgment impugned hereat is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.