the applicant that the it was a security cheque issued by the applicant, therefore, by issuing the security cheque, the applicant herein has authorized the opposite party no.2 to make necessary alteration in the cheque in terms of Section 87 of the N.I. Act to carry out the common intention of the parties. Since the issuance of cheque is not denied by the applicant, an application under section 139 of the N.I.Act has come into play against the applicant herein. Further, in the cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the Magistrate is required to record its prima facie satisfaction, whether an offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out or not prior to summoning the accused persons. From perusal of the order dated 06.02.2019, it is apparent that the learned Magistrate has applied its mind to the facts and the documents annexed along with the complaint. After perusal of the documents such as original cheque, dishonour memo, demand notice and registry receipt etc., the trial court has recorded its finding that the cheque was dishonoured on 22.05.2018 and thereafter the demand notice was issued on 02.06.2018. Accordingly, the instant complaint was filed on 25.06.2018 within the limitation period. Therefore, having found a prima facie case against the applicant, the trial court has summoned the applicant herein, therefore, sufficient application of mind is reflected from the order dated 06.02.2019. In view thereof, learned AGA submits that no interference is called for while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
