JUDGMENT : 1. The learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Shimla pronounced a verdict of acquittal on 23.8.2010, upon case No. 344-3 of 10/09. The afore case was with respect to commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The complainant/petitioner, becomes aggrieved, from the afore drawn verdict of the learned trial Court, and, is led to constitute there against, the instant petition before this Court. 3. The dishonored negotiable instrument, is, borne in Ex. CW-1/E, and, therein a sum of Rs.93,516/- is carried. Since, upon presentation of Ex. CW-1/E before the banker concerned, the latter through Ex. CW-1/F declined to honor it. Consequently, the complainant issued a statutory notice embodied in Ex. CW-1/B to the accused, and, therewith became appended a UPC receipt borne in Ex. CW-1/C. Since the request made through Ex. CW-1/B, remained un-acceded to by the accused, despite his being served with the exhibit (supra), as evident from the fact, that the serving of Ex. CW-1/B, wherewith became appended Ex. CW-1/C has not come to be contested, by the accused. As stated (supra) with a request embodied in a validly served notice, carried in Ex. CW-1/B, remaining unheeded by the accused, thereupon, the complainant was led to constitute against the accused, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned trial Court concerned. 4. The authorized Officer of the complainant, upon his stepping into the witness box as CW-1, has proven the recitals carried in the complaint, as became instituted before the learned trial Court. During the course of his cross-examination, the accused has struck a defence, that he had issued the dishonored negotiable instrument, to the complainant, only as a security for liquidating, vis-à-vis, it, the apposite loan installments, as became encumbered upon him, for, the borrowings, as, made by him from the complainant. Therefore, the afore made defence of the accused, does prima-facie, constrain this Court, to, strike an inference, that the dishonored negotiable instrument, carried the authentic signatures of the accused, and, also a further inference is garnered that all the scribings carried therein, both in words and in figures, hence being in the hands of the accused. 5. Therefore, the afore made defence of the accused, does prima-facie, constrain this Court, to, strike an inference, that the dishonored negotiable instrument, carried the authentic signatures of the accused, and, also a further inference is garnered that all the scribings carried therein, both in words and in figures, hence being in the hands of the accused. 5. Further more, since the complainant, is the drawer of dishonored negotiable instrument, thereupon, the presumption carried in Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, do foist a valid leverage, in the complainant to validly contend, that the issuance of the cheque, by the accused to the complainant, was in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other contractual liabilities. “[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.]” 6. However, the afore presumption is rebuttable. The complainant for rebutting the afore presumption, had made dependence, upon Ex. RX-26, drawn on 27.6.2008, wherein, the statement of account is carried, and, appertaining to the apposite borrowings, and, therein a nil balance is shown. Nonetheless subsequent thereto, the dishonored negotiable instrument became presented before the Banker concerned, as evident from Ex. CW-1/E, rather on 24.9.2008. The presentation of Ex. CW-1/E subsequent to the making of Ex. RX-26, wherein vis-à-vis statement of account, as maintained by the financial institution concerned, vis-à-vis, the borrowings made by the accused, from it, a zero balance is displayed. Therefore, when no amount after 27.6.2008 was ever redeemable to the complainant/financial institution, by the accused. Consequently, the accused has been able to rebut the statutory presumption working, vis-à-vis, the holder in due course of dishonored negotiable instrument, and, has also established that Ex.CW-1/E was issued merely as a security, for the repayment of the loan installments, appertaining to his borrowings, as made, from the financial institution concerned. In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal, and, the same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned verdict is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.