with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that judgments passed by learned courts below are not based upon the proper appreciation of facts as well as evidence led on record, rather this court finds that both the courts below have very meticulously dealt with each and every aspect of the matter and there is no scope of interference, whatsoever in the present matter. In the case at hand, accused, who is a Government employee and working as Driver in HPPWD, has nowhere disputed factum with regard to his having taken loan of 1,50,000/- from the complainant. He has not disputed the factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signature thereupon. 7. Interestingly, accused in his statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C stated that he will pay the amount as and when he receives his salary. There is overwhelming evidence available on record that sum of 1,50,000/- was paid by the complainant to the accused on his request and he with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque amounting to `1,50,000/-, but same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since at no point of time factum with regard to issuance of cheque as well as signature thereupon ever came to be disputed by the accused, presumption as available under Section 118 and 139 of the Act, comes into operation in favour of the complainant, which clearly provides that holder of the cheque shall have presumption in his favour that cheque was issued in discharge of lawful liability. No doubt, aforesaid presumption is rebuttable and could be rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence. Probable defence can be raised either by leading positive evidence or by referring to the documents/evidence led on record by the complainant. Interestingly, in the case at hand accused has not been able to raise probable defence and has himself admitted factum with
