from the above said concern. When the complainant was the Director of We-One Kuries, which was interalia engaged in granting loan under hypothecation agreement, it is not possible to believe that PW1 would advance loan of Rs. 1,10,000/personally to the revision petitioner rather than routing through his institution. PW1 admitted that one of the Directors of the said concern was expelled from the said concern as there was some misappropriation. It is also to be noted that PW1 did not see the revision petitioner writing on Ext.P1 cheque or signing the same. When the revision petitioner had a contention that the blank signed cheque entrusted by the revision petitioner with the complainant at the time of availing the loan from We-One Kuries had been misutilized by the complainant to file the present complaint, the complainant had a duty to prove the execution of the cheque by adducing evidence. However, in this case, the execution of the cheque could not be proved through the evidence of PW1. There is no other evidence to prove the execution of Ext. P1 cheque by the revision petitioner. Having gone through the evidence of PW1, in the light of Exts. D1 to D3, I am of the view that the contention of the revision petitioner is probable. If that be so, it has to be held that the complainant could not establish the execution of Ext. P1 cheque as contemplated
