which alleged loan was advanced to the accused in his complaint, legal notice and affidavit. Further, the two transactions between the complainant and the accused are admitted i.e. the transaction of giving the shop on rent by the accused to the complainant and giving of advance rent of _6,24,000/- by the complainant to the accused. Further, the complainant himself has admitted that the entries on the cheque in question such as amount and name of the payee are in different ink then that of the ink of the signature and the complainant has failed to lead any plausible explanation as to this. Further, admittedly, the complainant has neither shown the alleged amount of loan transaction in his accounts nor in his income tax returns. Further, relationship of the complainant and accused in two transactions is an admitted fact, wherein the possession of the cheque for security purpose is quite natural phenomena and moreover in the present case, the complainant has failed to produce any oral or documentary evidence to support the alleged loan transaction and he has not acted as man of prudence as loan transaction of such huge amount was not reduced into writing nor was witnessed by any witness whereas other transactions of rent where advance of_ 6,24,000/was given was well reduced into writing. Therefore, the possibility of misuse of blank security cheque can not be ruled out in the present case. The opinion of this court finds support from the authorities titled as M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and
