IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 481of 2002 Date of decision:27.6.2008 Balwant Singh Appellant Versus Multan Singh Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. M.S.Thakur & Inderjeet Singh Narwal, Advocates. V.K.Ahuja, J. (Oral): This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palampur dated 13.3.2002 vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent allegedly issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.25,000/- in favour of the plaintiff dated 10.1.199. On presentation, the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds and after issuance of the notice to the respondent as required by law, the complainant filed the present complaint before the trial Court who tried the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act leading to his acquittal. Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned counsel the appellant were that in case the cheque was issued, there was a presumption that the cheque was issued for a consideration and that presumption was not rebutted by the respondent, and therefore, incorrect findings were recorded by the learned trial Court. It was further submitted that the evidence led by the respondent was not sufficient to hold that the cheque was not issued for consideration and, as such, the findings of the learned trial Court are liable to be reversed. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the respondent took up a plea that the cheque was issued in regard to some contract which was for the risk involved but since the contract did not materialize, the cheque issued in advance by the respondent was to be returned by the plaintiff which was not returned and he filed the complaint as against the respondent. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that from the witnesses examined by the respondent and from the statement of the official from the Forest Department it is clear that the respondent had not taken any contract for extraction of the resin as per their record which was necessary and, therefore, no amount was due to the complainant from the respondent. The learned trial Court had discussed the evidence and had concluded that the complainant had failed to show that the cheque was issued for consideration. There is nothing on record to show as to what settlement of accounts was arrived at between the parties at the time of the contract. From the above, discussion the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court cannot be termed as perverse. There is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. 27th June, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)