whether the cheque was given on the date on which the honey was given to the accused or whether the cheque was given subsequent to the giving of the honey, etc. During the cross-examination, the accused put several facts, which were denied by the complainant. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that defence has got a specific case, as to how Ext.P1 cheque, which pertains to the account of the accused was reached the hands of the complainant. According to the defence, the cheque was obtained under threat and coercion, at the instance of the Sub Inspector of Police, who had been influenced by the complainant. To prove the above facts, though DWs.1 and 2 were examined, the learned Magistrate did not accept the above version of the defence, as they failed to substantiate the same. It is also relevant to note that the learned Magistrate after considering the evidence of the complainant who is examined as PW.1, found that the claim of the respondent with respect to the sale of honey is also not reliable since, even as per the version of PW.1,
