The prosecution initiated by the appellant/complainant against the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act ended in acquittal. Therefore, this appeal.

2. According to the complainant, for the amount borrowed from the complainant, the accused issued a cheque, Ext.P1, drawn on 18.6.1997. It was presented to the bankers on the next day. By Ext.P2 it was dishonored on the ground that the funds were insufficient. On 20.6.1997 Ext.P3 notice was issued. Though it was accepted on 26.6.1997 by the accused, the accused did not either repay the amount or send a reply. Accordingly, the complaint was filed on 7.8.1997.

3. The court below found that the complainant had, through his own evidence and Ext.P1, proved the issuance of the cheque for an amount of Rs.80,000/-towards the loan availed of by the accused. In spite of that, the court below found that necessary ingredients of the offence alleged had not been made out and that by mere proof of Ext.P1 cheque, the contents thereon had not been proved.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the said finding is totally perverse. When the cheque has been proved and it was