that PW1, the complainant, has got an inconsistent case and the case advanced by the accused is more probable than the evidence adduced by the complainant. Since there was no transaction on 18.12.2002 as is evident from the evidence of PW1, I find that the issuance of cheque on 18.12.2002 for the borrowal of Rs.40,000/- is incorrect. In fact, it is evident that Ext.P2 cheque was given as security along with the promissory note dated 14.05.2002. So, the accused could rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that he had executed cheque towards the discharge of the debt of Rs.40,000/- as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has failed to establish the transaction on 18.12.2002 on the strength of Ext.P2 cheque and therefore, he has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act. No evidence was forthcoming to prove that Ext.P2 cheque was executed for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt of Rs.40,000/- alleged to have borrowed on 18.12.2002. Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned anything regarding issuance of Ext.P2 cheque dated 18.12.2002 by the accused for Rs.40,000/- . According to PW1, Rs. 40,000/- includes Rs.35,000/plus the interest accrued on it. But, no such allegations were made in the complaint. Therefore, I find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. The court below has
