defaulted amounts and as to how the liability amount of Rs.2,13,258/was arrived at, etc., are completely omitted to be stated therein. The sworn statement given by the complainant at Sec.200 Cr.P.C stage is also ditto of the complaint and it has also the above said defects in the complaint. Later, in the proof affidavit filed by the complainant in lieu of chief examination, entirely different case is set up therein by stating that the petitioner happened to be the guarantor/surety to the said Ramakrishnan in the above transaction and further that he also happened to be a relative of Ramakrishnan, etc. Even in the proof affidavit, it is conspicuously silent about the chit agreement, date of commencement of the chit, date of termination of the chit, whether the subscriber had received any prized amount, how many instalments made, defaulted instalments and as to how the liability has arrived at, etc. So, when it comes to the proof affidavit, the complainant has a new story that the accused is not only a relative of Ramakrishnan but also is a guarantor of subscriber and for showing that the accused is guarantor of the subscriber, Ext.P-9 promissory note dated 12.12.2005 said to have been executed by one Sri.Prajeesh has been produced along with the proof affidavit. Later an additional proof affidavit was filed thereby producing Ext.P-10 ledger. Therefore, since the statutory demand
