ORDER

Revision petitioner assails the concurrent findings of the court below in a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

2. The case of the petitioner herein is that towards the discharge of the money due in a chitty transaction, which was prized, petitioner herein had executed and delivered Ext.P1 cheque. To prove the allegation, complainant relied not only on the evidence of PW1 but also that of Exts.P1, P2, P7 andP8. Ext.P7 ledger extract indicates the money due. The only defence set up by the accused was that a blank signed cheque was handed over at the time of receipt of the prize money. Virtually, revision petitioner admitted the signature and even that, prize money was received. The only question that remained was whether the execution has been proved. There was absolutely no evidence to show that the cheque was handed over at the time of receiving the prize money. There was no independent evidence to prove that nor there was any reply to Ext.P4 lawyer notice.

3. Having regard to the above facts, it is clear that both the courts have concurrently arrived at proper and correct conclusion Crl.R.P.780/16 that the evidence of PW1 proved the due execution