Appellant was the complainant in the lower court. He filed this appeal in challenge of the order of acquittal of the respondent of the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short' the act).

2. Appellant filed the complaint in the lower court based on Ext.P1 cheque (for Rs.56,000/- dated 3-10-1990) which was issued by the respondent. When the cheque was presented for encashment it was returned unpaid by the bank concerned on the ground "payment stopped". Complainant then issued a notice to which respondent sent a reply. As the respondent failed to pay the amount within fifteen days of receipt of notice, complaint was filed in the lower court. After taking evidence lower court acquitted the respondent.

3. The stand of the respondent in the lower court is this: Respondent did not owe any liability or debt to the complainant. However one Mohammad Yunus (DW-1) owed some money to the complainant. As DW-1 was in impecunious condition and as the complainant insisted on repayment of the debt, respondent went to the rescue of DW-1 and issued the cheque.

4. Learned Magistrate found that DW-1 's story is true and hence he expressed the opinion that since responden