Heard Sri Jagadeesh H T, learned counsel for

the appellant.

2.

IA No.1/2021 is filed seeking special

leave to prefer the appeal as the accused has been

acquitted of the offence punishable under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3.

Para 18 of the judgment of the trial court

contains the reasons for acquitting the accused of

the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. It is the

clear finding of the trial court that the signature

found on the cheque does not tally with the

admitted

signatures

accused

on

vakalathnama marked as Ex.P.9, application and

statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore

the trial court has expressed an opinion that

:: 3 ::

probably the accused might not have issued the

cheque.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellant now

shows copy of Ex.P.1, the cheque and also copies

of Ex.P.9 and vakalath executed by the accused

when

he

entered

appearance

before

Magistrate. On comparing the disputed signature

with the admitted signatures, a lot of differences

in the signature could be seen. It is very apparent

to the naked eyes. Moreover Ex.P.2 is the

endorsement issued by the bank for returning the

cheque. According to Ex.P.2, Cheque was returned

for