JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal, is, directed by the complainant/appellant herein, against, the verdict of acquittal pronounced by the learned trial court, upon, Complaint 138 NIA RBT No. 299-1-2004/38-II-2012-2004. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the complainant was running the cable network in Una town and round about areas under the name and style of Subh Cable Network in partnership with the accused person. There had been a financial dispute about the assets and investments in respect of the said business. Consequently, a settlement was entered into between two sides vide written agreement entered on 3.7.2004. The accused gave two cheques first bearing No.972294 dated 3.7.2004 and second bearing No.972295 post dated 17.7.2004 for Rs. 9,50,000/- each as per the terms of the agreement to complainant. Complainant presented these cheques before his banker Himachal Gramin Bank Una on 18.11.2004, his banker further sent the cheques for encashment to the banker of the accused, The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Una. These cheques, however, were turned by the banker of the complainant vide memorandum dated 20.11.2004 on the ground that the payment of these cheques had been stopped by the accused. It is further averred that the complainant has come to know from reliable sources that the accused was not having sufficient funds in his account and accordingly he asked his banker to stop the payment to cheat the complainant. The accused did not pay the amount of cheques to complainant despite legal notice dated 23.11.2004 got issued by the complainant through his counsel requiring the accused to pay the same within 15 days despite the fact that the accused had received this notice on 25.11.2004, to discharge his legal liability, hence, the complaint. 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 three 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, he claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 4. In proof of the case, the complainant examined three 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, he claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication. 4. On an appraisal of the evidence, on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal, in, favour of the accused/respondent herein. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant herein, 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 misappreciation, by it, 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 trial court, rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence, on, record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 7. Two dishonoured negotiable instruments, are, respectively borne in Ex.C-2, and, Ex. C-3, each carry, a, sum of Rs.9,50,000/-, (i) and, the afore are espoused by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, to be, issued in discharge, of, a legally subsisting or contractual liability, arising from, an, admitted agreement drawn inter se, the complainant, and, the accused, and, agreement whereof, occurs at page 219, of, the records, of, the learned trial Court. The contents thereof, unveils, qua therethrough, the complainant becoming enabled to efficaciously draw leverage, vis-a-vis, 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.” (ii) and, also when no efficacious thereto rebutting discharging evidence, is, adduced by the respondent/accused, (iii) thereupon, it is espoused qua the impugned order of acquittal, as, recorded by the learned trial Court, meriting interference, being made, by this Court. Conspicuously, the statutory presumption, leveraged, vis-a-vis, the holder of the cheque, is, rebuttable, through suggestions being meted to the complainant, during, the course of his cross-examination, (iv) and, upon documentary evidence rather for sustaining, the, apt rebutting discharging recoursing(s), becoming, hence adduced by the respondent. Consequently, this Court, would only allude, to, the afore discharging evidence, as, stands adduced, by, the respondent/accused. Visibly, the issuances, of, the dishonoured negotiable instruments occurred in contemporaneity or in quick spontaneity, vis-a-vis, the drawing(s), of, an agreement, of, 3.7.2004, inter se the accused/respondents, and, the appellant/complainant. The authenticity, of, execution of the afore agreement inter se the complainant/appellant, and, the accused/respondent herein, is not, contested. However, the issuance, of, both the dishonoured negotiable instruments, hence, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the drawing, of, an agreement inter se both, and, in quick spontaneity thereto, assumes, significance, (v) as the complainant, at the end of his cross-examination, has meted an affirmative answer, to, a suggestion, vis-a-vis, at the time of drawing, of, the afore agreement inter se him, and, the accused, no settlement of accounts, occurring inter se them, and, that only confabulations inter se both, rather being underway. The afore meteing of an affirmative suggestion, vis-a-vis, the complainant, and, the meteing, of, affirmative answer meted thereto, by the complainant, (vi) hence, carry all requisite legal effects qua therethrough, the respondent/accused rather adducing the relevant rebutting discharging evidence, for, hence benumbing, the, statutory presumption, as, leveraged, vis-a-vis, the holder, of, the dishonoured negotiable instruments. The afore meteing of an affirmative suggestion, vis-a-vis, the complainant, and, the meteing, of, affirmative answer meted thereto, by the complainant, (vi) hence, carry all requisite legal effects qua therethrough, the respondent/accused rather adducing the relevant rebutting discharging evidence, for, hence benumbing, the, statutory presumption, as, leveraged, vis-a-vis, the holder, of, the dishonoured negotiable instruments. Further, corollary thereof is that, hence, the afore cheques, were, not issued in lieu, of, any settled, or, ascertained legal or contractual liabilities entered into or subsisting inter se the respondent/accused, and, the complainant/appellant, (vii) rather they appear to be tentatively issued, only as a security against, the, further completion of, accounts inter se them, (viii) and, when thereafter the complainant was enjoined to adduce further evidence, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity of the issuance of the afore cheques, rather, a, final settlement of accounts, occurring inter se him, and, the accused, (ix) whereas, the afore evidence remaining unadduced, thereupon, a firm conclusion emanates, vis-a-vis, the issuance of cheques, working not towards any final settlement, of, accounts amongst them, rather theirs being issued tentatively, as, a security, against dues, as would accrue, only upon, a, final settlement, of, accounts, happening, (x) whereas evidently, with the, final settlement, of, accounts amongst, the, contesting litigants, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the issuance, of, the apposite cheques, rather not happening, (xi) thereupon, also it appears, that, the afore cheques, becoming misused, by the complainant/appellant, despite, theirs being not issued towards any legally enforceable debt or any other legal liability, subsisting or existing amongst them imperatively at the relevant phase. 8. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, there is no merit, in the instant appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. In sequel, the verdict impugned before this Court is affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.