JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands directed, against the impugned verdict, rendered by the learned Sessions, Judge, (Forest) Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 6-S/10 of 08/07, where through, the afore, after setting aside the verdict, of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentenced imposed, upon, the accused, hence by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, hence proceeded to pronounce, a verdict of acquittal, upon, the accused. 2. The appellant/accused, for discharging, his purported apposite liability hence issued, two, cheques, respectively on 25.1.2005, and, on 28.1.2005, to the respondent/complainant, and each cheque, carried, a, sum of, Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant presented, the afore cheques, at the bank concerned, and, upon their presentation there before, both were dishonored, hence, for want of sufficient funds, in, the accounts, of, the accused. The cheques were dishonored, on 30.5.2005, and, thereafter the complainant hence, filed, the, extant complaint. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted, and, also sentenced, the accused, for a charge drawn under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hence to, undergo simple imprisonment, for, six months, and, he also stood sentenced, to, pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/, - and, in case of default, of, making payment of fine amount, he stood sentenced, to, further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, and, sentence, the accused filed an appeal, before the learned first appellate Court, alleging, that the entire amount due against him, had been paid to the complainant, and, no amount was due from the accused. Regarding the issuance of cheques, the accused has admitted, the case, of, the complainant but according to him, the, entire amount due from him had already been paid, to, the complainant and, hence the cheques were demanded back, but, the complainant did not, on one pretext of the other, hence return the cheques. 3. On perusing the preliminary evidence, adduced by the complainant, the Court, of, the learned JMIC, Theog, District Shimla, took cognizance, against the accused, and, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation was put to the accused, on 2.1.2006, qua commission of an offence, under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, whereto he pleaded, not guilty, and claimed trial. 3. On perusing the preliminary evidence, adduced by the complainant, the Court, of, the learned JMIC, Theog, District Shimla, took cognizance, against the accused, and, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation was put to the accused, on 2.1.2006, 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 one Daya Rattan, as CW-2, and, one Vipin Kumar, as CW-3. 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, four witness, in defence. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction, upon, the accused. The accused aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, (Forest), Shimla, whereupon the learned first appellate Court, reversed the findings, of conviction, recorded upon the accused, and, allowed the appeal. 5. The appellant herein, is aggrieved, by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned first appellate Court. The learned Counsel appearing, for the appellant, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded, by the learned first appellate 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(s) on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence, on record. 8. 7. This Court with the able assistance, of, the learned counsel(s) on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence, on record. 8. The learned appellate Court, had proceeded to make a verdict of acquittal, upon, the accused, through its assigning reasons, a) vis-a-vis, the statutory notice, which stood purportedly served, upon the accused, under an acknowledgment, borne in Ext.DW1/A, and, its serving(s), upon, the accused rather preceding the institution, of, the apposite complaint, before the learned trial Magistrate, rather wanting, in probative vigor, it, rather carrying, the, forged signatures, of, the accused, (ii) and, the afore conclusion emanated, from, his suo-motu, making a comparison, with, the other admitted signatures, of, the accused, borne in Ext. C-1 and in C-2, and, also upon, his making comparison(s), with, the admitted signatures of the accused, as stood appended, in the proceedings, drawn under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 9. However, for the hereinafter reasons assigned, the afore stated reasons, by the learned appellate Court, are, stained with a gross infirmity, a) his remaining unmindful, vis-a-vis, the averments, as are cast, in the affidavit, tendered into evidence, by the accused, wherein rather the apt averments, carry candid articulations, qua his receiving, the, statutory notice, from, the complainant, and, also, forthright echoing(s), are carried therein, qua his thereafter establishing contact with the complainant, or settling the accounts, and, his afore entreaties, as made, upon, the complaint, rather not begetting, the, apposite success, (a) as given the complainant, claiming that the sum(s), of, money, owed by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainants' mother, also being made disbursable to him, and thereafter, he has made echoing(s), therein, that, the cheque, borne in the Ext. C-1 and in Ext. C-2, each carrying, a, sum of Rs. 25,000/-, each, rather being abused, and, misused by the complainant. Significantly, the imminent effects of the afore, do erode, and undermine the afore assigned, reasons, recorded, in the impugned verdict, as made, by the learned appellate Court. 10. C-1 and in Ext. C-2, each carrying, a, sum of Rs. 25,000/-, each, rather being abused, and, misused by the complainant. Significantly, the imminent effects of the afore, do erode, and undermine the afore assigned, reasons, recorded, in the impugned verdict, as made, by the learned appellate Court. 10. Be that as it may, the afore articulation(s), though, are made in the apposite discharge, and, hence for there through(s), the accused striving to discharge, the, onus, of, rebutting, the statutory presumption, embodied 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 of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Where through, vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque(s), a statutory presumption, is leveraged, qua his holding it, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or other liabilities, entered into interse him, and, the complainant. However, the afore endeavour, is also, extremely weak, besides, flimsy, given the afore echoing(s), also carrying the effects, of, admission(s) of the accused, qua rather a legally enforceable debt, or other liability, being arrived at, interse both, or hence existing or subsisting, interse both, (b) and for liquidation(s) whereof, the, apposite dishonoured negotiable instrument, being issued by him, vis-a-vis, the complainant. Though, the accused also espouses, qua a part of the sum, as carried, in, the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s), rather comprising debts, owed by him, to the mother, of, the complainant, and also concomitantly, hence preponderantly espouses qua hence the complainant abusing or misusing hence the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s) (c) however, the best evidence qua therewith, is comprised in the mother, of, the complainant being ensured to hence step into witness box, however, the mother of the accused/complainant, remained neither cited, as, an accused witness nor stepped into the witness box, for proving the afore submissions, as, carried in the affidavit, as, stood tendered by the accused. The factual sequel whereof, is qua wants, of, the accused hence ensuring the stepping into the witness box, of, his mother, thereupon the echoing(s), borne in his affidavit qua the complainant, hence abusing, the, cheque, becoming blunted, (e) and, concomitantly, the efficacy of the requisite statutory presumption rather remaining intact (f) thereupon the order of acquittal pronounced upon the accused, warrants hence interference. 11. In aftermath, for the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds, that the learned appellate 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 the quantum of sentence, on 30.9.2019. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, stands directed, against the impugned verdict, rendered by the learned Sessions, Judge, (Forest) Shimla, in Criminal Appeal No. 6-S/10 of 08/07, where through, the afore, after setting aside the verdict, of, conviction, and, consequent therewith sentenced imposed, upon, the accused, hence by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, a charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, hence proceeded to pronounce, a verdict of acquittal, upon, the accused. 2. The appellant/accused, for discharging, his purported apposite liability hence issued, two, cheques, respectively on 25.1.2005, and, on 28.1.2005, to the respondent/complainant, and each cheque, carried, a, sum of, Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant presented, the afore cheques, at the bank concerned, and, upon their presentation there before, both were dishonored, hence, for want of sufficient funds, in, the accounts, of, the accused. The cheques were dishonored, on 30.5.2005, and, thereafter the complainant hence, filed, the, extant complaint. After the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court convicted, and, also sentenced, the accused, for a charge drawn under, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, hence to, undergo simple imprisonment, for, six months, and, he also stood sentenced, to, pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/, - and, in case of default, of, making payment of fine amount, he stood sentenced, to, further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. 10,000/, - and, in case of default, of, making payment of fine amount, he stood sentenced, to, further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, and, sentence, the accused filed an appeal, before the learned first appellate Court, alleging, that the entire amount due against him, had been paid to the complainant, and, no amount was due from the accused. Regarding the issuance of cheques, the accused has admitted, the case, of, the complainant but according to him, the, entire amount due from him had already been paid, to, the complainant and, hence the cheques were demanded back, but, the complainant did not, on one pretext of the other, hence return the cheques. 3. On perusing the preliminary evidence, adduced by the complainant, the Court, of, the learned JMIC, Theog, District Shimla, took cognizance, against the accused, and, the accused was summoned. Notice of accusation was put to the accused, on 2.1.2006, 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 one Daya Rattan, as CW-2, and, one Vipin Kumar, as CW-3. 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, four witness, in defence. 4. On an appraisal of evidence on record, the learned trial Court, recorded findings of conviction, upon, the accused. The accused aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, (Forest), Shimla, whereupon the learned first appellate Court, reversed the findings, of conviction, recorded upon the accused, and, allowed the appeal. 5. The appellant herein, is aggrieved, by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned first appellate Court. The learned Counsel appearing, for the appellant, has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded, by the learned first appellate 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. 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(s) on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence, on record. 8. The learned appellate Court, had proceeded to make a verdict of acquittal, upon, the accused, through its assigning reasons, a) vis-a-vis, the statutory notice, which stood purportedly served, upon the accused, under an acknowledgment, borne in Ext.DW1/A, and, its serving(s), upon, the accused rather preceding the institution, of, the apposite complaint, before the learned trial Magistrate, rather wanting, in probative vigor, it, rather carrying, the, forged signatures, of, the accused, (ii) and, the afore conclusion emanated, from, his suo-motu, making a comparison, with, the other admitted signatures, of, the accused, borne in Ext. C-1 and in C-2, and, also upon, his making comparison(s), with, the admitted signatures of the accused, as stood appended, in the proceedings, drawn under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 9. However, for the hereinafter reasons assigned, the afore stated reasons, by the learned appellate Court, are, stained with a gross infirmity, a) his remaining unmindful, vis-a-vis, the averments, as are cast, in the affidavit, tendered into evidence, by the accused, wherein rather the apt averments, carry candid articulations, qua his receiving, the, statutory notice, from, the complainant, and, also, forthright echoing(s), are carried therein, qua his thereafter establishing contact with the complainant, or settling the accounts, and, his afore entreaties, as made, upon, the complaint, rather not begetting, the, apposite success, (a) as given the complainant, claiming that the sum(s), of, money, owed by the accused, vis-a-vis, the complainants' mother, also being made disbursable to him, and thereafter, he has made echoing(s), therein, that, the cheque, borne in the Ext. C-1 and in Ext. C-2, each carrying, a, sum of Rs. 25,000/-, each, rather being abused, and, misused by the complainant. C-1 and in Ext. C-2, each carrying, a, sum of Rs. 25,000/-, each, rather being abused, and, misused by the complainant. Significantly, the imminent effects of the afore, do erode, and undermine the afore assigned, reasons, recorded, in the impugned verdict, as made, by the learned appellate Court. 10. Be that as it may, the afore articulation(s), though, are made in the apposite discharge, and, hence for there through(s), the accused striving to discharge, the, onus, of, rebutting, the statutory presumption, embodied 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 of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." Where through, vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque(s), a statutory presumption, is leveraged, qua his holding it, in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, or other liabilities, entered into interse him, and, the complainant. However, the afore endeavour, is also, extremely weak, besides, flimsy, given the afore echoing(s), also carrying the effects, of, admission(s) of the accused, qua rather a legally enforceable debt, or other liability, being arrived at, interse both, or hence existing or subsisting, interse both, (b) and for liquidation(s) whereof, the, apposite dishonoured negotiable instrument, being issued by him, vis-a-vis, the complainant. Though, the accused also espouses, qua a part of the sum, as carried, in, the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s), rather comprising debts, owed by him, to the mother, of, the complainant, and also concomitantly, hence preponderantly espouses qua hence the complainant abusing or misusing hence the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s) (c) however, the best evidence qua therewith, is comprised in the mother, of, the complainant being ensured to hence step into witness box, however, the mother of the accused/complainant, remained neither cited, as, an accused witness nor stepped into the witness box, for proving the afore submissions, as, carried in the affidavit, as, stood tendered by the accused. The factual sequel whereof, is qua wants, of, the accused hence ensuring the stepping into the witness box, of, his mother, thereupon the echoing(s), borne in his affidavit qua the complainant, hence abusing, the, cheque, becoming blunted, (e) and, concomitantly, the efficacy of the requisite statutory presumption rather remaining intact (f) thereupon the order of acquittal pronounced upon the accused, warrants hence interference. 11. In aftermath, for the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds, that the learned appellate 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 the quantum of sentence, on 30.9.2019. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.