JUDGMENT :

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J.

1. The respondent/accused, through the impugned verdict, made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajgarh, upon, criminal case No. 98/3 of 2007, became acquitted, for a notice of accusation, drawn for an offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, whereupon the complainant becomes constrained, to institute thereagainst the instant appeal, before this Court, for therethrough, his striving to seek its annulment.

2. The dishonoured negotiable instrument, is, embodied in Ext. CW1/A, and, an amount, of, Rs. 2,40,000/-, is, carried therein. Un-controvertedly, for want of sufficient funds, existing in the bank(s) concerned, hence in contemporaniety, vis-à-vis, vis-à-vis, its presentation therebefore, by the complainant, it become dishonored, (i) whereupon the complainant became constrained, to, issue a statutory notice, upon the respondent/accused, statutory notice whereof, is, comprised in Ext. CW1/D. Since, within the time prescribed therein, the respondent/accused, failed to liquidate, to, the complainant, the amount, echoed therein, (ii) thereupon, the complainant, became constrained, to, lodge a complaint, before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned.

3. This Court, would become constrained to invalidate the impugned verdict, of, acquittal, recorded, qua the accused/respondent, upon, emergence, on record, of, forthright, and, candid evidence, hence personificatory, vis-à-vis, therethrough, the, statutory presumption(s), as embodied in Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instrument 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.”

and, holding contemplations, vis-à-vis, a presumption, being available to be drawn, unless cogently rebutted, vis-à-vis, the holder, of, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, inasmuch, as his receiving it, rather for discharge, in whole, or, in part, a legally enforceable debt, or any other liability, rather remaining undislodged.

4. The complainant, upon stepping into the witness box, as CW-1, though, does sustain, the echoing(s), borne, in the apposite complaint, however, during the course, of, his facing cross-examination, he has not been able to make any bespeaking, vis-à-vis, his being a licensed money lender, whereupon, this Court, makes an inference, qua (a) the lendings, by him, to, the respondent/accused, of sums, borne in the dishonored negotiable instrument, comprised in Ext. CW1/A, rather not constituting within the ambit, of, Section 139, of, the Negotiable Instrument Act, (hereinafter referred to “the Act”, for short), any legally enforceable debt, or, other liability, (b) whereupon, perse the issuance, of, Ext. CW1/A, and in its, dishonoring, by the Bank concerned, upon its presentation therebefore, can not, crystallize any concomitant inference, that therethrough any criminal liability, becoming fasteneable upon the respondent/accused. Moreover, added strength to the afore made inference, becomes derived from the complainant, during the course, of, his crossexamination, feigning ignorance, vis-à-vis, the scribing(s), borne in Ext. CW1/A, (c) and, also from his feigning ignorance, vis-à-vis, the recitals, borne therein, rather being in contra-distinct ink, besides and, also from his feigning ignorance, vis-à-vis, the contents, of, Ext. CW1/A. The afore inference, hence displaying the completest lack, of, knowledge, of, the complainant, visà- vis, Ext. CW1/A, when becomes, entwined with the hereinabove, drawn inference, rather amplificatory, vis-àvis, issuance thereof, not working towards any legally enforceable debt, or any other liability,(d) whereupon, the afore statutory presumption, becomes ipso-facto maimed, and, also, perse, it disables the complainant, to, draw any