According to me, that case of the complainant cannot be believed in the absence of particular facts, which I pointed out earlier. The learned Magistrate has categorically found that on scrutinising the evidence adduced by PW1, it is seen that the complainant was not present at the time of executing the other entires in Ext.P1 cheque except the signature. The evidence of PW2, according to the learned Magistrate, is also not sufficient to prove the execution of the cheque. Admittedly, the accused is a person having necessary education and the evidence from the side of the complainant is not sufficient to hold that the accused is aware of that the complainant will part an amount of 1 lakh to the accused on 24.7.2008 and therefore, according to me, it is unbelievable that the accused brought a filled up cheque for an amount of 1 lakh showing the date of the cheque as 24.1.2009. The accused, being a literate person and having necessary education, is not expected to bring a filled up cheque even if the transaction is considered as true. Thus, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the execution of the cheque and what proved through PW1 is only the
