executing a promissory note and the same is not seen produced before the court. Thus, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the trial court has found that PW.1 during his cross-examination deposed that a case was filed in Mavelikkara using the said promissory note in the year 2009, but he does not know the present stage of the said case. The learned Magistrate has further observed that PW.1 has no case that the promissory note which executed by the accused, was returned to her at the time of issuance of Ext.P1 cheque. The learned Magistrate further found that, when PW.2 the wife of PW.1 was examined, she put forwarded a totally different version with respect to the promissory note. She deposed before the court that promissory note was returned to the accused, though she could not re-collect the date of return. Dissatisfied with the above conflicting evidence of PWs.1 and 2, who is none other than the husband and wife, the learned Magistrate has found the promissory note is a material evidence as far as the prosecution evidence is concerned and it is the best evidence to
