K.Hema, J. — On a complaint filed by appellant before Magistrate court, first respondent stood trial for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’ for short). To prove complainant’s case, PW1 was examined and Exs. P1 to P6 were marked. The accused did not adduce any evidence, but took up a contention that he received only a lesser amount from complainant and as security, he handed over a cheque in blank form to complainant. The transaction took place on a different date and not any date alleged by complainant. The blank cheque was misused, to file a false complaint, it is further contended.

2. Learned Magistrate, after consideration of evidence and materials on record, acquitted the accused, mainly on the following observations and findings in paragraphs 11 and 1, 2 of the impugned order:

“Accused is not admitting either the signature in Ex. P1 or the execution of Ext.P1. So, it is the duty of the complainant to prove the execution ofExt. P1. Only when the execution of Ex. P1 is proved, the offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be attracted.

12. The mere allegation made by PW1 is to the effect that Ex. P1 cheque was given by t