JUDGMENT : The issue involved in this appeal is in a very narrow compass. A complaint filed by the present appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stands dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi, H.P., vide judgment 26.04.2010, passed in Criminal Complaint No.18-III/2006, titled as Gurbachan Singh Versus Kamli Devi, on the ground that as the cheque subject matter of the complaint stood issued as a ‘security cheque’, therefore, said cheque i.e. the security cheque did not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under :- As per the appellant/complainant, the respondent/accused took a loan of Rs.55,000/- from him and in lieu of the same, she handed over a cheque for an amount of Rs.55,000/-, drawn upon Punjab National Bank, Pandoh, Tehsil Sadar, Distti.Mandi, H.P., in his favour on 28.12.2005. The amount of Rs.55,000/- was borrowed in the 3rd week of October, 2005. It is further the case of the complainant that when said cheque was handed over for its collection to the bank concerned, the same was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a statutory notice was issued to the respondent/accused for payment of the said amount, but as the accused did not heed to the said notice, complaint stood filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This complaint has been dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 26.04.2010, primarily on the ground that as the cheque was issued by way of security, therefore, such like cheques do not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it has been clearly laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that even dishonouring of such cheques which are issued by way of security, do attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1, titled as Don Ayengia Versus State of Assam and Another, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in Para12 thereof as under: “12. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1, titled as Don Ayengia Versus State of Assam and Another, in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold in Para12 thereof as under: “12. The difficulty arises only because the promissory note uses the words “security” qua the cheques. This would ordinarily and in the context in which the cheques were given imply that once the amount of rupees ten lakhs was paid, the cheques shall have to be returned. There would be no reason for their retention by the complainant or for their presentation. In case, however, the amount was not paid within the period stipulated, the cheques were liable to be presented for otherwise there was no logic or reason for their having been issued and handed over in the first instance. If nonpayment of the agreed debt/liability within the time specified also did not entitle the holder to present the cheques for payment, the issuance and delivery of any such cheques would be meaningless and futile, if not absurd.” 4. Accordingly, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the judgment passed by learned Trial Court below is in-conflict with the law of land as has been laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, therefore, the present appeal be allowed. 5. Defending the order passed by the learned Court below, Ms. Monika, learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the respondent has argued that as the cheque was issued just as a security and otherwise also as the borrowed amount stood paid back by the accused to the complainant, the filing of the complaint was nothing, but an act of harassment on the part of the complainant and the complaint accordingly stands rightly rejected by the learned Trial Court below. She has argued that the onus to demonstrate that the cheque was issued in lieu of some loan etc. taken from the complainant by the accused was squarely upon the complainant which he failed to discharge, as no evidence was brought on record to prove the allegations contained in the complaint. She has accordingly prayed that as the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is a well-reasoned judgment, duly substantiated by the law as stands mentioned therein, therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 6. She has accordingly prayed that as the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is a well-reasoned judgment, duly substantiated by the law as stands mentioned therein, therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court as well as record of the case. 7. As I have already mentioned hereinabove, the complaint of the present appellant stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court on the sole ground that as the cheque stood issued by the respondent to the complainant by way of security, therefore, such like cheques do not attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This Court is of the considered view that these findings which have been returned by the learned Trial Court are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with penalties in case of dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the account. A perusal of the said statutory provision demonstrates that there is no distinction which is made therein with regard to a cheque which is dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds etc. in the account, in case it is issued as a security vis-à-vis a cheque which has not been issued as a security. In fact, this issue is no more res integra and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Don Ayengia Versus State of Assam and Another’s case (supra) has been pleased to hold that the cheques which are issued by way of security, cannot be treated to be ornamental only and the person in whose favour such cheque has been issued, has a right to present the cheque for payment if the agreed debt/liability is not paid within the time specified. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that as the judgment under challenge is in-conflict with the law as stands laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that as the judgment under challenge is in-conflict with the law as stands laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and judgment dated 26.04.2010, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No.3, Mandi, H.P., in Criminal Complaint No.18-III/2006, titled as Gurbachan Singh Versus Kamli Devi, is ordered to be set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for adjudication afresh on merit. 11. It is clarified that as far as the merits of the case are concerned, this Court has not expressed any opinion thereof and the case be decided by the learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the respective stand taken by them before the learned Trial Court and the evidence which stands led by them to prove their respective contentions. It is further clarified that the learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observation which might have been made by this Court in this judgment as far as the adjudication of the complaint on merit is concerned. 12. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.