also the accused has made certain payments. The trial court has further found that though Ext.P8 is the abstract of the statement, it is not a statement of account showing the actual payment made, the manner of appropriation, rate of interest charged, interest on interest, penal interest and other charges and in what manner the complainant has arrived the amount of Rs.69,438/beyond Ext.P1 pro-note. So, according to the learned Magistrate, the complainant has miserably failed to prove the exact liability due to the complainant from the accused. In this connection, it is relevant to note that though PW1 in his proof affidavit has stated that the accused has demanded to clear the arrears, no evidence or material is produced by the complainant to prove the above facts, in spite of the fact that the complainant has maintained several documents connected with the chitty transaction like Exts.P1 to P9 documents. So, there is absolutely no evidence to hold that on 18.8.2008, the accused was aware of the fact that an amount of Rs.69,438/- was due to the complainant and accordingly she executed and issued Ext.P2 cheque. It is in the above back drops of the case of the accused that Ext.P2 cheque was obtained by the complainant in its blank form when the
