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 No.168-3 2015/2014. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that the complainant/ appellant herein is the sole proprietor of Aseem Trading Company situated at NH-22, Bye Pass, Panthaghati, Shimla, H.P., and, is dealing in the sale of building material. It has been averred that the accused purchased certain building material from the complainant on credit worth Rs.1,22,191/-. In order to discharge his legally enforceable liability, the accused has issued a cheque bearing No. 800915 dated 5.8.2014 for Rs.1,22,191 drawn on UCO Bank, Main Branch Shimla, H.P., in favour of the complainant against his account being maintained by him with his bankers. When the aforesaid cheque was presented by the complainant for encashment with her banker, namely, State Bank of Patiala, Kasumpti, Shimla, H.P., the cheque was dishonoured for reasons “Funds Insufficient”. It has been further averred that the complainant received the memo of dishonour from her banker on 6.8.2014 and on receipt of the same, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 2.9.2014 which was sent to the accused by registered post on both his correct addresses, calling upon him to make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days. It has been averred that despite the receipt of the legal notice, the accused failed to make the payment of the cheque amount within the statutory period. Hence, the present 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 herself as a 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. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW-1. 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. In defence, the accused examined himself as DW-1. 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 mis-appreciation 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. The charge against the accused, would be concluded, hence to be cogently proven, upon, (a) cheque, borne in Ex.CW1/A being proven to be in the handwriting of the accused, (b) return memo, borne in Ex.CW1/B, containing recitals qua, upon, presentation of Ex.CW1/A, before the bank concerned, it being refused to be honoured also hence being proven, to, be issued, from, the bank concerned. A perusal, of, the record appertaining therewith unravels qua cogent evidence, in proof, of, aforesaid rather existing hereat. 8. A perusal, of, the record appertaining therewith unravels qua cogent evidence, in proof, of, aforesaid rather existing hereat. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused, has made a strenuous submission before this Court, qua the order of acquittal, as, recorded by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis, the accused/respondent herein, assigning validity by his placing reliance, upon, a verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in a case titled as Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan and another, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 275 , wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court, had, (i) upon, the complaint being instituted by the payee, of the negotiable instrument thereat, and, who had proclaimed himself, to be the sole proprietor, of the proprietorship concern, nomenclautred as Vijay Automobiles, whereas, he omitted to place on record rather documentary evidence, to sustain the afore espousal hence proceeded to decline, the relief to him, upon, an application moved before the Appellate Court, under, the provisions of 391 of the Cr.P.C., (ii) wherethrough, the payee had strived to adduce evidence, hence, making echoings qua his being the sole proprietor, of the afore firm, and, thereupon his being a valid payee, of, the negotiable instrument thereat. Even though, this Court would, in, tandem therewith, also decline the relief to the appellant herein, vis-a-vis, the motion, constituted in an application, as, cast under the provisions of Section 391 of the Cr.P.C, (iii) wherethrough, she seeks leave to tender into evidence, document (s) rather personifying hers being, the, sole proprietor of the apposite firm, and, hence, seeks to make a loud espousal, qua her being, a, valid payee of the negotiable instrument, comprised in Ex.CW1/A, (iv) AND, thereafter seeks to avail the statutory benefits, of, the presumption embodied in Section 149, of, the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, for the reasons, to be assigned hereafter, the dismissal of the complaint, of, the complainant thereat, by the Hon'ble Apex Court, through a verdict rendered in Milind Shripad Chandurkar's case (supra), holds therewithin, certain evidentiary parameters, rather bearing gross distinctivity, with, the evidentiary material existing hereat, (v) thereupon, constraining, to, lean to this Court that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Milind Shripad Chandurkar's case (supra), vis-a-vis, the extantly distinguishable therefrom, hence, evidentiary material, rather, being not applicable thereto. 9. 9. Even though in the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as, rendered in Milind Shripad Chandurkar's case (supra), there is evident similarity, inter se the evidence led, in the complaint thereat, by the complainant, comprised, in, his echoing, in his affidavit qua his being the sole proprietor of Vijay Automobiles, (i) and, alike hereat, the complainant thereat, in his cross-examination, also though makes an echoing qua hers not producing, any documentary evidence, to, sustain the afore echoings. However, the afore partial affinity, vis-a-vis, the afore factum, as embodied, in, the cross-examination, rendered by the complainant, wherein, she has also rendered alike echoing (s) qua hers being sole proprietor of the apposite firm, (ii) however, the afore affinity or similarity, vis-a-vis, the afore trite similarly testified factum/probandum, by the complainant therein, and, the complainant hereat, would not beget an alike therewith conclusion (iii) as in the extant case, hence, the striking contradiction (s) therewith, is rested, upon, rather the complainant, subsequent to the closure of the complainant's evidence, had, while participating, in, the proceedings drawn, under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., (iv) had, therein, to a specific question meted to him, vis-a-vis, the complainant being the sole proprietor of Aseem Trading Company, rather meted a categorical, and, absolute denial thereto, (v) hence, his failing to make an echoing, in, denial qua the afore Aarti Goel, hence being the sole proprietor of Aarti Trading Company, carries the consequential effect (s) of the accused, acquiescing qua the payee, of the dishonoured negotiable instrument, being the sole proprietor, of, Aseem Trading Company. Amplifying vigour to the afore inference, is, mobilised, by the the accused also not categorically, denying qua the issuance of the cheque by him, vis-a-vis, the complainant, not being towards, any legally enforceable debt or other liabilities, rather his defending the issuance of the dishonoured negotiable instrument, comprised in Ex.CW1/A, only on anvil, of his not making the payment through cehques rather through cash. Furthermore, the accused while stepping into the witness box, as DW-1 in his examination-in-chief, (vi) has not rendered any echoing qua the complaint being not maintainable, on the ground, qua the afore Aarti Goyal, being not the sole proprietor of Aseem Trading Company, (vii) and, rather with his in his cross-examination, rather admitting the suggestion put to him, qua the requisite mandatory notice prior to the institution of the complaint, being received by him, (viii) and, yet his evidently failing to make, any response thereto, on the ground that Aarti Goyal, being not the validly constituted payee, of Ex.CW1/A, (ix) and when the afore factum is entwined with the afore lack of response, to the statutory notice, and, with his also not contesting, the scribings, occurring on Ex.CW1/A, (x) thereupon, it is to be concluded, that, even he has scribed the name of the complainant, on, Ex.CW1/A, rather begetting the further sequel qua, in contemporaneity to the issuance, of, Ex.CW1/A, his being aware qua Aarti Goyal being the sole proprietor, of Aseem Trading Company, (xi) prominently also when he has meted, in proceedings drawn under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an answer to question No.2, that, he was making liquidation of his liabilities, vis-a-vis, the material purchased by him, from Aseem Trading Company, through cash, than through issuing cheques, (xii) thereupon, it is to be concluded that he was aware, given his protracted engagement, in, commercial transactions, with, Aseem Trading Company, qua rather the complainant being the sole proprietor thereof, (xiii) and, he has rather surmisally, for the afore reasons, made, misdependence, upon, the verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in Milind Shripad Chandurkar's case (supra), (xiv) and also made a mis-endeavour, that, for want of documentary evidence being adduced by Aaarti Goel, that, she is the sole proprietor of Aseem Trading Company, hence, hers being not a validly constituted payee, of the negotiable instrument, and, also has reared a gross mis-espousal, that, Ms. Aarti Goel, is not, entitled to the statutory presumption available, vis-a-vis, the payee of the negotiable instrument, qua it, being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and, other legal liabilities, which rather emerged/subsisted, inter se, the accused, and, the complainant. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed, and, the verdict impugned before this Court is set aside. 10. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed, and, the verdict impugned before this Court is set aside. Accused/respondent be produced before this Court on 17.6.2019 for hearing him on the quantum of sentence. All pending applications also stand disposed of.