can be seen that on physical verification of Ext.P2 cheque, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate has found that there is a correction in the amount written in figures and the number written as 'one' is later corrected as 'six'. No initial or signature of the drawer of the cheque is seen in corrected portion of the cheque in question. That means, the drawer of the cheque has not admitted the correction or the correction was effected without any authority. In this juncture, it is relevant to note that as correctly found by the learned Magistrate, regarding the acceptance of the cheque by the Bank for collection, the Bank Authorities will be only looking into whether there are sufficient funds in the account of the accused and if it is satisfied that there is sufficient fund, then it goes to consider whether the cheque can be otherwise encashed. In the present case, there was no sufficient fund to honour the cheque. Therefore, the other question does not arise. Thus, going by the judgment of the trial court, it can be seen that the trial court refused to accept the case of the
