JUDGMENT : The learned trial Court, upon, Criminal Case No. 47-1/2014/137-III/2014, decided on 15.11.2016, made a verdict of conviction, upon the accused, for his committing an offence punishable, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Though a separate order drawn on 16.11.2016, the learned trial Court imposed, upon the accused, a sentence of imprisonment extending upto a period of 9 months, for his committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.s Act. Moreover, the learned trial Court, through the afore drawn order, awarded a lump sum compensation carried in a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- to the complainant, and, ordered its being recovered from the accused one Tara Chand. 2. The accused convict becoming aggrieved from the afore drawn verdict of conviction, and, consequent therewith sentence becoming imposed, upon him, by the learned trial Court, proceeded to institute an appeal bearing Cr. Appeal No. 49 of 2016, before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court through its verdict made thereon, on 1.8.2017, declined to interfere with the verdict supra recorded by the learned trial Court. 3. Therefore, the accused/convict is led to institute thereagainst the extant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court. 4. Cheque Ex.CW1/B carrying therein a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-, on its presentation before the bank concerned, became dishonoured. Ex.CW1/C, is the memorandum issued by the bank concerned, and, makes a disclosure therein, that for want of sufficient funds existing in the account of the petitioner/accused, the bank concerned not becoming facilitated to honour, the cheque supra, as, become presented before it, by the complainant. 5. Thereafter, since subsequent to the issuance of statutory notice, by the complainant to the accused, and, as becomes borne in Ex.CW1/D, notice whereof became sent through registered post, to the respondent/accused, and, became accompanied by an acknowledgement borne in Ex.CW1/F, yet the notice (supra), not begetting the requisite compliance from the accused/petitioner. Consequently, the complainant was led to institute the complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The complainant, during the course of his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit comprised, in Ex.CW1/A, and, therein he maintained that various amounts either through cheque or through cash, all totalling a sum of Rs. 15 lacs became disbursed to the respondent/accused. Consequently, the complainant was led to institute the complaint, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. The complainant, during the course of his examination-in-chief tendered his affidavit comprised, in Ex.CW1/A, and, therein he maintained that various amounts either through cheque or through cash, all totalling a sum of Rs. 15 lacs became disbursed to the respondent/accused. He avers therein, that the afore sums were disbursed as loan, to the accused/petitioner, as, he was in dire need of money, owing to family problems, and, for his meteing the expenses towards his medical treatment. He has also echoed therein, that some of the amounts became received by the accused through his wife one Smt. Khema Devi. Moreover, he has also averred therein that the accused had orally offered to sell his land to him, and, in lieu of the afore orally agreed transfer of land to him by the accused, the latter made borrowings of a sum of Rs.15 lacs from him. He contends that since the oral promise became reneged by the accuse,d thereupon, the latter issued cheque bearing an amount of Rs.15 lacs. Obviously he maintained, that the dishonour of the cheque amount by the bank concerned, did hence constitute a validly recoverable amount by him from the accused. In other words, he maintained that the cheque amount be construable to be in discharge of contractual liability supra, or/and, towards the discharge of a legally enforceable debt supra. 7. The accused has not denied the existence of his valid signatures, upon the cheque comprised in Ex.CW1/B. He though, during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, did not make suggestion to him, appertaining to the particulars carried therein being not scribed in his hands, nor obviously any elicitations surged forth, from the complainant manifestative of the particulars occurring therein being in the hands of the accused. However, during the course of proceedings, as, became drawn under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused made a bald statement, that the particulars carried in the dishonoured cheque, being not filled by him, rather the validly signatured cheque becoming issued, as blank to the complainant. However, during the course of proceedings, as, became drawn under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused made a bald statement, that the particulars carried in the dishonoured cheque, being not filled by him, rather the validly signatured cheque becoming issued, as blank to the complainant. Since, thereafter the accused, did not, proceed to seek comparison of the scribed particulars carried in the cheque, with his admitted handwriting(s) rather by the expert concerned, therefore, it is concluded that the afore made bald statement in the afore drawn proceedings, do not carry, any evidentiary worth. 8. Though, upon the afore stated factum, this Court is led to make a prima facie conclusion, that the presumption 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.” do leverage in the complainant, to, upon all the scribings inclusive of signatures remaining unrebutted through adduction of cogent evidence (supra), to contend, qua his being a valid holder in due course of the dishonoured cheque, and, to also concomitantly hence contend, that the issuance of the negotiable instrument being towards the discharge of the legally enforceable debt or some other valid contractual liability. However, the afore presumption is rebuttable, and, the onus for rebutting the afore presumption became cast upon the accused, and, also became enjoined to be discharged by him. 9. As stated supra, the reason for making payments of cheque amount to the accused by the complainant, do occur. However, the accused upon his stepping into the witness box after closure of proceedings drawn under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in his examination-in-chief, articulated that he had issued cheque in lieu of his taking groceries, on loan, from the shop owned by the complainant. He has also echoed in his examination-in-chief, that the total groceries taken as loan from the shop of the complainant, were only in a sum of Rs.65,000/-. The afore echoings existing in the examination-in-chief of the accused, never become attempted to be scuttled, of their apt vigour by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, while subjecting the accused to cross-examination. The afore echoings existing in the examination-in-chief of the accused, never become attempted to be scuttled, of their apt vigour by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, while subjecting the accused to cross-examination. Consequently, the afore factum acquires an aura of evidentiary vigour, and, does belie the stand (supra) maintained by the complainant. 10. However, since also hence the accused acquiesced, to the factum that the cash value of the groceries taken on loan, by the accused from the shop of the complainant, becoming comprised in a sum of Rs.65000/-, and, has also admitted that the cheque carrying rather a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- became issued by him. Therefrom, there appears a prima facie gross disproportion inter se the afore made unrebutted articulations, as became carried in the examination-in-chief of the accused, and, the amount carried in the dishonoured cheque. However, even in the face of disproportion (supra), this Court is yet to assess, whether as a matter of fact, in the face of the complainant, in his cross-examination though admitting qua his operating a commercial establishment, and, his also becoming engaged in financing, the apposite borrowers, whether hence there was any necessity, cast upon the complainant, to maintain books of accounts, carrying the completest concurrence with the amount carried in the dishonoured negotiable instrument(s). 11. The necessity of books of accounts being maintained in the commercial establishment(s), of the complainant, and, appertaining to his private lending business, and, to his shop, which rather he acquiesced being not maintained by him, does per se ensure, the erection of an inference, that the accused though, did take groceries from the commercial establishment of the accused, as loan, with a promise to subsequently liquidate the amounts in proportion therewith. Consequently, the complainant was enjoined to maintain books of accounts in respect thereto, which he, however, omitted to maintain or to produce. Therefore, the acquiesced omission supra, can be construed to rebut the presumption attached to the accused hence issuing the dishonoured cheque to the complainant, for his therethroughs liquidating the moneys borrowed by him, as, sale consideration, for his transferring his land to the complainant. Therefore, the acquiesced omission supra, can be construed to rebut the presumption attached to the accused hence issuing the dishonoured cheque to the complainant, for his therethroughs liquidating the moneys borrowed by him, as, sale consideration, for his transferring his land to the complainant. The ensuing sequel thereof, is that,, for his omission supra, and, also for want of cross-examination upon the accused, despite the latter in his examination-in chief, echoing qua his purchasing groceries on loan from the complainant's shop, rather the amount carried in the dishonoured cheque, being proven through cogent rebuttal(s) (supra), to the statutory presumption, hence by the accused, to be, rather not towards discharge of any legal or other liability (supra), as maintained (supra) by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint becomes falsified. 12. The factum of through the afore mode, rather the accused rebutting the statutory presumption attached to the holder of the dishonoured negotiable instrument, carrying thereons, the, valid signatures, and, also scribings of the accused, yet preserved a further opportunity to the complainant, to even after his making the afore acquiescences (supra), to after rummaging through all the ledgers, and, books of accounts appertaining to his lending money to the accused, seek leave of the court to adduce them in evidence. The adduction of the evidence (supra) may have belied the accused. However, the complainant, even after his making the afore acquiescences appertaining to his omission supra, and, also to his acquiescing to the accused purchasing groceries rather from his grocery shop, did not, attempt to rebut through adductions of all the ledgers, and, books of accounts maintained in the commercial establishment(s) concerned, hence the successful discharging evidence in rebuttal to the statutory presumption, as, adduced (supra) by the accused. Consequently, since he failed to avail the afore opportunity, thereupon, the effect of his acquiesced omission (supra), is that the amount carried, in the dishonoured cheque became made therein, by the accused, only under a bonafide belief, as became conveyed, to him, by the complainant, that the amount carried thereins, being co-equivalent to the amounts of groceries, taken as loan, from his commercial establishment. 13. Moreover, the complainant could also place on record cogent documentary material, comprised in the ledger books or books of account maintained, by him in his commercial establishment, and, against the relevant lending entries, rather the valid signatures of the accused existing. 13. Moreover, the complainant could also place on record cogent documentary material, comprised in the ledger books or books of account maintained, by him in his commercial establishment, and, against the relevant lending entries, rather the valid signatures of the accused existing. However, even the afore documentary evidence remained unadduced into evidence. Therefore, the afore made conclusion acquires the completest strength and vigour. 14. Analyzing from another angle, though, the complainant has been able to prove, through Mark Y, which is the statements of accounts appertaining to his bank, that through cheques, a total sum of Rs.10 lakhs became respectively disbursed to the accused and/or to his spouse. However, mark-Y appertains to the years 2010 and 2011, whereas, the extant cheque became issued in the year 2014. Since, the complainant contends, that certain amounts became disbursed, to the complainant, and, to his wife respectively through cheques or through cash, and, the afore was to ensure the accused, complying with his oral promise, to transfer the land owned by the accused to the complainant. However, the afore factum has been denied by the accused. In addition, with respect to lendings in cash, to the accused, by the complainant, rather has been in the complainant's cross-examination, disclosed to occur in the presence of witnesses, inasmuch, as, in the presence of one Nilu, Kheru, Gathu Ram and Pratap, all of whom are averred to be relatives of the complainant. However, none of the afore became led into the witness box, for supporting the factum of the handing overs of cashby the complainant to the accused hence being in the presence of the afore. Therefore, any amounts which came to be lent in cash, by the complainant to the accused, cannot be construed to be holding any tenacity rather the cheque amount is concluded to be filled up, only upon the accused bonafidely believing the complainant, that the lent grocery amounts to him was upto Rs.15 lacs. 15. Though, the complainant has not, in his deposition, made any reference that two other complaints being filed by him against the accused. However, the accused in his testimony has made a graphic disclosure, that apart from the dishonour of the extant negotiable instrument, the complainant has instituted three cases. Consequently, the effect of the afore suppression from the learned trial Court, does constrain, this Court, to draw an adverse inference, against the complainant. However, the accused in his testimony has made a graphic disclosure, that apart from the dishonour of the extant negotiable instrument, the complainant has instituted three cases. Consequently, the effect of the afore suppression from the learned trial Court, does constrain, this Court, to draw an adverse inference, against the complainant. The reason for drawing the afore adverse inference, becomes well anchored, as only upon placing on record all the afore complaints, instituted against the accused by the complainant, and, also if they had travelled upto the stage of the completest recording of evidence(s) thereon, both oral as well as documentary, some unearthings may have surged forth in display of the borrowings, qua whereto, Ex.CW1/B become issued, and, would also hence have ensured apposite emergences, qua the other complaints as became instituted were also qua therewith hence by the complainant against the accused. It appears, that the afore unearthings became attempted rather to be aborted by the complainant, given his failing to adduce all the afore material, before this Court or before the learned trial Court. Therefore, it appears that the complainant, has with respect to the same entire borrowings, whether in cash or in kind, as made by the accused, from the complainant, rather has taken to institute numerous complaints against the accused. Consequently, the amount carried in the extantly dishonoured cheque, is, a speciously filled amount. 16. For the afore reasons also this Court is constrained to conclude that the accused is prima facie, taking to even without maintaining the relevant books of account in his commercial establishment, untenably strive to establish, that the entire amount carried therein, appertains to discharge by the accused of his legally and other enforceable contractual liability, even when in respect thereof, no cogent material exists, on record. 17. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that both the learned Courts below have not appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by both the learned Courts below, hence, also suffers from a gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 18. Consequently, there is merit in the extant criminal revision petition, and, it is allowed. Therefore, the judgments impugned before this Court are set aside and quashed. 18. Consequently, there is merit in the extant criminal revision petition, and, it is allowed. Therefore, the judgments impugned before this Court are set aside and quashed. In sequel, the accused/petitioner is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith