balance amount is only 35,656/- and Ext.D1 is dated 23.7.2006, whereas Ext.P1 cheque is dated 9.10.2006, i.e., about within three months from the date of Ext.D1 where the amount is shown as 47,376/-. Of course, the counsel for the appellant has got a contention that the amount covered by the cheque is inclusive of the interest. To substantiate the above contention, there is no evidence. In the absence of any such evidence, the observation and finding of the learned Magistrate regarding the difference of about `10,000/between Ext.D1 and the amount shown in Ext.P1 appear to be reasonable and reliable. Suffice to say, the complainant has not produced the ledger claimed to have maintained by the complainant/company. So in the absence of any positive evidence to prove the exact liability of the accused, according to me, the defence version appears to be more probable. Thus, on examination of the finding of the court below in the above factual backdrops and the evidence and materials referred to by the learned Magistrate, in the impugned judgment, it appears to me that the same are correct and
