The complaint filed by the appellant under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act failed and Ist respondent/accused was acquitted. Therefore, this appeal.

2. The facts of this case are not in dispute. There was a dealing between the parties in terms of Ext.P6 agreement. Whether the Ist respondent was the dealer of the appellant or agent of the appellant is immaterial when Ext.P6 agreement is admitted.

3. Ext.P6 agreement discloses that the Ist respondent had drawn two cheques in favour of the appellant. One for an amount of Rs.5000/- as deposit and another, cheque No.DLBC 890885, drawn on Dhanalakshmi Bank, Ltd. Palluruthy, the cheque in question. This was a blank cheque. Both the cheques are referred to in Ext.P6 agreement and it is made clear that this blank cheque was towards the liability that may fall due from the Ist respondent. When there was certain dues payable by 1st respondent, the cheque was presented in the bank. It was bounced for want of funds. Statutory notice did not result in payment of the amount. Therefore, the complaint was filed by the appellant.

4. The Court below found that the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not