The novel question posed in this case is whether a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be maintained if the cheque amount in a post dated cheque is larger than the actual debt due on the date of transaction.

2. The appeal is by the complainant in C.C. No.554 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor. He is aggrieved that the complaint filed by him alleging offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from dishonour of Ex.P-1 cheque for Rs.1 lakh ended in acquittal of the accused (present respondent).

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of the presumption arising from Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the acquittal of the accused has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Reliance was also placed on the fact that Ex.D-1 which was produced by the accused to contend that the cheque was issued in connection with a totally different transaction is a forged document as found by the trial Court.

4. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the cheque in question cannot create a cause of action for the complaina