relating to the transactions which led to the liability in question in this case and that such suppression of material facts would be serious illegality, which would give the accused, the benefit of acquittal in this case. That in the complaint, the statutory demand notice, (Ext.P5) as well as in the proof of affidavit, all what is stated is that in discharge of the liability of Rs.5 lakhs owed by the accused to the complainant, the accused had issued the instant cheque. The nature of the transactions between the parties, the details as to how the liability figure of Rs.5 lakhs has arrived at etc. are completely omitted to be stated in the complaint, demand notice as well as in the proof of affidavit. Even the crucial aspects relating to as to when Ext.P1 cheque was handed over by the accused to the complainant has also been totally omitted to be stated anywhere in the compliant. It is urged by the petitioner's counsel that these omissions to state those aspects should be evaluated in the light of Ext.D2 reply notice issued by the accused stating all the details regarding the transactions in this case. Except by making an evasive reference to the reply notice dated 26.04.2010 by terming it as false, the complainant has not made any averments in the complaint or in the statutory demand notice or in the proof affidavit as to the contents of the said reply notice and as to how the said contents in the reply notice sent by the accused are false and untenable. The said reply notice has not
