JUDGMENT Ramendra Jain, J. -Through this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of Special Leave to file accompanying appeal against the judgment of trial Court dated 01.10.2013, whereby complaint filed by applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short-'the Act') was dismissed and respondents were acquitted. 2. Briefly, applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act, on the allegations that respondents had issued three cheques bearing Nos. 028986 dated 12.06.2007 of Rs.5,75,000/-; 028987 dated 12.07.2007 of Rs.5,75,000/- and 028988 dated 12.08.2007 of Rs.5,76,577/-, to discharge their liability, which on presentation to the bank had bounced. After holding trial, the said complaint of the applicant was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment impugned herein. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contends that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that respondents have admitted their signatures on the cheques in question and that they belonged to their bank account. Respondent No. 2-SK Garg, Proprietor of respondent No. 1 admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that he had issued cheques in question to the applicant. However, the trial Court without any corroborative evidence, what to talk of cogent and convincing, acquitted him on his bald statement that cheques in question were issued as security. Referring to judgment of Apex Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 1 CriCC 983 (SC) , the trial Court illegally acquitted the respondents, which has been overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide judgment in Rangappa Vs. Mohan, (2010) AIR SC 1898 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents pleading the legality and validity of impugned judgment, contends that the applicant as CW-1 did not disclose the date and month of the supply of alleged goods, if any, by him to the respondents. He also could not prove any contractual liability of respondents qua him. 5. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this Court finds the instant application merits acceptance for the reasons to follow:- The observation of the trial Court that applicant failed to prove that there was existence of any legally recoverable debt against the respondents on the basis of judgment in Krishna Janardhan Bhat's case (supra), has been overruled by the Apex Court in Rangappa's case (supra). 6. 6. Admittedly, respondent No. 2-proprietor of respondent No. 1, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, categorically admitted issuance of cheques in question to the applicant and that the same pertains to their bank account. His bald plea in defence that the said cheques were handed over to the applicant as a security, had illegally been given un-necessary weight by the trial Court, without appreciating the fact that the said plea was not supported by any documentary evidence. 7. Section 139 of the Act, specifically envisages that presumption has to be drawn in favour of holder of the cheque, unless otherwise proved. Since, in the instant case, respondents have not been able to produce any documentary evidence, what to talk of any cogent and convincing in support of their plea that the cheques in question were issued as a security, therefore, allegations of the applicant that the cheques in question were issued by the respondents in discharge of their liability or that he has a legal recoverable debt from them, being un-rebutted, ought to have been believed or honoured by the trial Court in toto. This Court is fortified in its views by the ratio of judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in (i) C. Keshavamurthy Vs. H.K. Abdul Zabbar, (2013) 4 RCR(Civ) 15 ; (ii) K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan, (2001) 4 RCR(Cri) 545 ; (iii) T.P. Murugan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Bojan and another connected case, (2018) 3 RCR(Cri) 962 ; (iv) Kishan Rao Vs. Shankargouda, (2018) 3 RCR(Cri) 746 and latest judgment of Apex Court dated 06.02.2019 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 230-231 of 2019, Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar. 8. The trial Court had no legal authority to wrongly interpret the provisions of Section 139 of the Act. 9. In view of discussion made above, the complaint of the applicant is accepted in toto. Leave to appeal is granted. Registry is directed to assign number to this appeal. Impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 01.10.2013, is set aside. Respondent is held guilty for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Act. Matter is referred back to the trial Court to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent on the quantum of sentence and pass appropriate order. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18.03.2019. Disposed of