The respondent-accused had issued a cheque Ex. P. 1 for Rs.2,50,000 towards the discharge of debt liability in favour of the complainant. Ex.P. 1 on presentation was dishonoured. Statutory notice is issued and a private complaint filed.

2. Per contra, the accused denies existence of any debt liability. It is submitted that the accused had handedover a signed blank cheque to his wife which was given to the daughter of the accused and from whom the cheque is taken by the complainant and after fabrication, a false complaint is filed. The accused has produced an endorsement issued by his banker marked at Ex. D. 10 to show that the cheque in the first instance was presented on 3-6-1998 and it was dishonoured on the ground "account closed by the drawer". The complainant represented the cheque on 25-6-1998 through Syndicate Bank for collection, the cheque is dishonoured again on the ground that "account closed".

3. The Counsel Sri C.V. Nagesh relying on the decision of Supreme Court NEPC Micon Limited and Others u Magma Leasing Limited, argued that the expression "account closed" means insufficiency of funds. Therefore, there is no bar for the complainant to make successive presenta