basis of the disputed Ext.P1 cheque, on the allegation that it was given by the accused who is the petitioner herein, in discharge of her liability towards him. The fact that issuance and execution proceedings of the cheque were denied by the accused, is not in dispute. It is true that when the execution of the cheque is denied, initial burden is on the complainant to prove his case. But, at the same time in order to establish the case of the accused, she is also has a legal duty to adduce evidence to convince the court that her case is probable and genuine. Further admitting the signature and admitting execution of the cheque are different. Even in cases where the signature is admitted, there is a possibility of accused establishing that the cheque was not executed by him, as claimed by the complainant. It is true that the reasons stated by the magistrate for dismissing the application cannot be said to be palpably wrong, as the court has got power to compare the admitted signature with the disputed signature invoking the power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, but, it is not so safe in a criminal case, where the culpability of the accused has to be decided solely on the basis of such comparison alone. In such cases, it is always better for the
