effect that her husband was a chitty subscriber conducted by one Baby, who is admittedly the brother of the complainant's son-in-law. It was stated that the chitty was for Rs.58,000/and it was prized in favour of the husband of the accused. The signed blank cheque leaf of the respondent was also obtained for due payment of the subsequent instalments. Besides, two cheque leaves of the husband of the accused and also a voucher affixed with revenue stamp were obtained. In the light of the specific contention so raised by the accused in Ext.P7, some acceptable evidence should have been adduced by the complainant, the learned counsel for the accused submits. It is pointed out that Ext.P1 is a type written cheque. The accused is a woman residing about 9kms away from the house of the complainant. True, there is no presumption that, because the cheque is a type written one, it should be viewed with suspicion. But, the accused would contend that it would probabilise the case of the defence that the signed blank cheque leaf given to Baby who was conducting the chitty as mentioned earlier has misused the
