JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant criminal revision petition is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the Courts below, wherethrough, both convicted, and, consequently sentenced the petitioner herein (for short "accused"), for, a charge, under, Section 138 of the negotiable instruments Act. 2. The dishonored negotiable instrument, is, embodied in Ex. P-1, and, upon presentation of the afore Ex. P-1, before the banker concerned, it through memo borne in Ex. P-2, stood declined, to be honoured, by the banker concerned. 3. Be that as it may, the holder of the afore dishonored negotiable instrument i.e complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, (a) is, leveraged with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (b) and, wherethrough he is empowered, to, make a valid espousal, qua, his holding it, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or, other liabilities, arising or subsisting inter-se him, and, the accused. However, the afore statutory presumption is rebuttable, and, it is trite law, (c) that the onus of adducing potent discharging evidence, for, rebutting the afore leverage, as, bestowed, upon the holder of Negotiable instrument, is, also encumbered upon the accused. It is also trite expostulation of law, that, the afore onus, is, discharge-able, through, suggestions being meted to the complainant's witnesses, or, through apt cogent oral and documentary evidence, hence, being adduced, after, completion of proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. "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 debtor other liability." 4. Visibly the accused, for, discharging the afore onus, for, hence displacing the afore statutory presumption hence leveraged, vis-a-vis, the holder of Ex.P-1, (i) had and, propounded, vis-a-vis, Ex. P-1 being handed over on 19.7.1999 to one Tulsi Ram, as, collateral security, (ii) obviously he also propounds that Ex.P-1, rather coming to be abused or misused by the complainant, and, thereupon propounds qua there existing no legally enforceable debt or other liabilities inter-se both. Necessarily, when hence there was no subsisting or existing legally enforceable contractual, or, other liabilities, inter-se, him or the complainant, thereupon he reiteratedly espouses qua the cheque being misused. Necessarily, when hence there was no subsisting or existing legally enforceable contractual, or, other liabilities, inter-se, him or the complainant, thereupon he reiteratedly espouses qua the cheque being misused. However, the afore evidence, for, discharging the apt onus for displacing the statutory presumption, is, limited to a suggestion apposite thereto, being meted, to the complainant's witnesses, during the course of their respective cross-examinations, (i) however the afore endeavor is neither sufficient, nor, adequate, for, it being construable, to, constitute, any, complete apt discharges vis-a-vis the requisite onus cast, upon, the accused, as, it does not comprise, the, best evidence qua therewith, rather, the best evidence qua therewith, is, comprised in the afore Tulsi Ram, being ensured to step into the witness box, for, proving the afore espousal, (ii) whereas the afore best evidence remaining un-adduced, (iii) thereupon, it is unflinchingly concluded qua the accused, abysmally failing, to, adduce cogent evidence, for, negating the afore statutory presumption leverage hence bestowed, upon, the holder of the negotiable instrument, also hence the concomitant therefrom conclusion, is qua the afore statutory presumption hence acquiring both conclusivity or finality. 5. Even otherwise the accused, does not, contest the existence, of, his valid signatures on Ex.P-1, nor, he challenges the scribings both in words and figures, as, are borne therein. The apt corollary thereof is that when the drawee, of, the afore negotiable instrument, is, mentioned in Ex.P-1, to be the complainant, thereupon, the accused is estopped either to, make any valid contest before this Court that Ex. P-1 was issued, vis-a-vis, one Tulsi Ram, and, it was not issued, vis-a-vis, the complainant, nor, he can make any valid espousal, that there exists no subsisting legally enforceable debt or liability inter-se him, and, the complainant, nor, he can contend that the respondent/complainant hence had misused or abused Ex.P-1. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdicts, are, maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant criminal revision petition is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the Courts below, wherethrough, both convicted, and, consequently sentenced the petitioner herein (for short "accused"), for, a charge, under, Section 138 of the negotiable instruments Act. 2. The dishonored negotiable instrument, is, embodied in Ex. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant criminal revision petition is directed, against, the concurrently recorded verdicts, by both, the Courts below, wherethrough, both convicted, and, consequently sentenced the petitioner herein (for short "accused"), for, a charge, under, Section 138 of the negotiable instruments Act. 2. The dishonored negotiable instrument, is, embodied in Ex. P-1, and, upon presentation of the afore Ex. P-1, before the banker concerned, it through memo borne in Ex. P-2, stood declined, to be honoured, by the banker concerned. 3. Be that as it may, the holder of the afore dishonored negotiable instrument i.e complainant/respondent No. 1 herein, (a) is, leveraged with the statutory presumption, borne in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, (b) and, wherethrough he is empowered, to, make a valid espousal, qua, his holding it, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or, other liabilities, arising or subsisting inter-se him, and, the accused. However, the afore statutory presumption is rebuttable, and, it is trite law, (c) that the onus of adducing potent discharging evidence, for, rebutting the afore leverage, as, bestowed, upon the holder of Negotiable instrument, is, also encumbered upon the accused. It is also trite expostulation of law, that, the afore onus, is, discharge-able, through, suggestions being meted to the complainant's witnesses, or, through apt cogent oral and documentary evidence, hence, being adduced, after, completion of proceedings, drawn, under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. "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 debtor other liability." 4. Visibly the accused, for, discharging the afore onus, for, hence displacing the afore statutory presumption hence leveraged, vis-a-vis, the holder of Ex.P-1, (i) had and, propounded, vis-a-vis, Ex. P-1 being handed over on 19.7.1999 to one Tulsi Ram, as, collateral security, (ii) obviously he also propounds that Ex.P-1, rather coming to be abused or misused by the complainant, and, thereupon propounds qua there existing no legally enforceable debt or other liabilities inter-se both. Necessarily, when hence there was no subsisting or existing legally enforceable contractual, or, other liabilities, inter-se, him or the complainant, thereupon he reiteratedly espouses qua the cheque being misused. Necessarily, when hence there was no subsisting or existing legally enforceable contractual, or, other liabilities, inter-se, him or the complainant, thereupon he reiteratedly espouses qua the cheque being misused. However, the afore evidence, for, discharging the apt onus for displacing the statutory presumption, is, limited to a suggestion apposite thereto, being meted, to the complainant's witnesses, during the course of their respective cross-examinations, (i) however the afore endeavor is neither sufficient, nor, adequate, for, it being construable, to, constitute, any, complete apt discharges vis-a-vis the requisite onus cast, upon, the accused, as, it does not comprise, the, best evidence qua therewith, rather, the best evidence qua therewith, is, comprised in the afore Tulsi Ram, being ensured to step into the witness box, for, proving the afore espousal, (ii) whereas the afore best evidence remaining un-adduced, (iii) thereupon, it is unflinchingly concluded qua the accused, abysmally failing, to, adduce cogent evidence, for, negating the afore statutory presumption leverage hence bestowed, upon, the holder of the negotiable instrument, also hence the concomitant therefrom conclusion, is qua the afore statutory presumption hence acquiring both conclusivity or finality. 5. Even otherwise the accused, does not, contest the existence, of, his valid signatures on Ex.P-1, nor, he challenges the scribings both in words and figures, as, are borne therein. The apt corollary thereof is that when the drawee, of, the afore negotiable instrument, is, mentioned in Ex.P-1, to be the complainant, thereupon, the accused is estopped either to, make any valid contest before this Court that Ex. P-1 was issued, vis-a-vis, one Tulsi Ram, and, it was not issued, vis-a-vis, the complainant, nor, he can make any valid espousal, that there exists no subsisting legally enforceable debt or liability inter-se him, and, the complainant, nor, he can contend that the respondent/complainant hence had misused or abused Ex.P-1. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdicts, are, maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.