Further, the court also found that no evidence was adduced to show that a loan was given to the accused. If a loan of such huge amount of Rs.50,000/= was given, apart from the blank cheque, at least some promissory notes or other security would have been given. That was also not done and nobody was examined to prove that there was loan transaction between accused and the complainant. In the above circumstances, presumption under section 139 cannot be pressed in and it was also not proved that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. In this connection, I also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006 (3) KLT 404 SC). I am of the view that trial court has taken a possible view while acquitting the accused and no interference is required in the same. I also note that even though notice was issued in this appeal as early as on 20.1.1999, it was not served on the accused/respondent No.1 and no relief can be granted to the appellant without serving notice to the contesting respondent. In any event, there is no merit in the appeal.
