Does the use of the word ‘guarantee’ in Ext.P7 complaint convey that the cheque was not issued for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability? This is the question which is raised for the consideration of this court in this appeal.

2. The complainant – the Regional Officer, Sports and Youth Affairs, Central Government of India, alleged that the respondent/accused – a close friend of his, had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,000/- from him and had issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs.22,000/- dated 19/2/1991 for the due discharge of the said liability (including interest). The cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds’. Thereafter, the complainant came to court after scrupulously observing the statutory time table.

3. Cognizance was taken. The accused entered appearance and denied the offence. Thereupon, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and proved Exts. P1 to P12. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.W.2 was the Mayor of Calicut who tried to mediate the disputes between the parties and effect a settlement. P.Ws.3 to 5 are Managers/employees of the Banks. The accused admitted that he had signed Ext.P1 cheque and had handed t