N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint against the first respondent (herein after referred to as respondent) alleging offence under Section 138 of Neotiable Instruments Act. Ext.P1 is the cheque dated 08/10/2003 for Rs.4 lakhs drawn on the Co-operaive Urban Bank, Kenichira branch. The appellant contended that Ext.P1 was issued by the respondent to discharge a legally enforceable liability. When presented for encashment, it was returned dis-honoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Statutory notice was sent to the respondent which was acknowledged by him but no reply was sent. The amount was also not paid. Hence the complaint was filed.

2. The complainant got himself examined as PW.1 and the Manager of the bank was examined as PW.2. Exts. P1 to P.8 were marked. The learned Magistrate after thorough scrutiny of the evidence found that Ext.P1 cheque is in such a condition that it cannot be compared with the admitted signatures of the accused, due to the spreading of ink in that portion. It was contended by the defence that the signature purported to be of the accused found on Ext.P1 was different from the signature of the accu