Complainant is the appellant. His complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short `the N.I. Act') against the first respondent, after trial, ended in a judgment absolving the accused of the offence. Questioning the correctness and propriety of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused, he has filed this appeal.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is thus: Towards discharge of a liability, the accused issued Ext. P-1 cheque for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 promising its encashment on presentation in due course. The cheque presented, however, was dishonoured with endorsement "payment was stopped by drawer". Enquiry by the complainant disclosed that the accused had no sufficient funds in his account to honour the cheque. Statutory notice issued intimating the dishonour demanding the sum covered by the instrument to the accused was responded with a reply raising false contentions. Complainant, thereupon, launched prosecution against the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act filing the complaint.

3. The accused, on appearance, pleaded not guilty when the particulars of the offence were made known. Complainant examined himself as P.W. 1 and two other witness as P. Ws. 2 and 3. He also got marked Exts. P-1 to P-12 to prove his case. Accused questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reiterating his innocence denied of having any transaction with the complainant. He examined two witnesses as D.Ws. 1 and 2 the former to disprove the case of the complainant that Ext. P-1 cheque was issued towards balance sale price of a motor vehicle in his favour and the latter to show that there was substantial difference in the specimen signature in the card maintained in the bank with that seen in Ext. P-1 cheque, the signature of which was disputed as not having been subscribed by him. The learned Magistrate, after considering the materials produced, concluded that the complainant had not proved the due execution of Ext. P-1 cheque by the accused and also that the transaction alleged by him relating to the instrument was not acceptable. The contention of the accused that there was variation of his signature in Ext. P-1 cheque with the specimen signatures was found appealing to the court below which concluded that there is no proof that Ext. P4 was issued by the accused to the complainant in discharge of a legally existing debt. In that view of the matter, the accused was found not guilty and he was acquitted of the offence imputed.

4. I heard the learned counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the complainant assailed the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the accused as unsustainable under law and facts submitting that the evidence tendered in the case has been misappreciated by the learned Magistrate and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Ext. P-7 agreement relating to the transaction between the complainant and the accused over the sale of a motor vehicle in which the issue of Ext. P-1 cheque by the accused towards the balance sum payable on such sale, it is submitted, was duly proved in the case. But the court below on mere surmise and conjunctures discarded its evidentiary value. The case of the complainant regarding the sale transaction of the vehicle and issue of Ext. P cheque, it is submitted by the learned counsel, was disbelieved by the court for the reason that no material was produced to show that he was the registered owner of the vehicle overlooking the prevailing practice that ownership of motor vehicles often take place without change of names in R.C.Book, but, on the basis of sale letter and other documents. The case set up by the accused as to missing of his cheque book in the hotel of his father and the dispute regarding the signature in Ext. P-1 cheque remained unsubstantiated by any convincing legal evidence, but, still the court below has accepted that defence, submits the counsel. Further opportunity sought by the plaintiff to examine th