promissory notes and blank cheque book filed the complaint against the revision petitioner to have unlawful gain. Both the courts below did not accept the said contention and they did not rely upon the oral testimony of DW-1, who was one of the partners of Vijayadurga Chits and Finance, Martur, supported the version of the revision petitioner and stated that the firm while advancing loan of Rs.50,000-00 to the revision petitioner obtained from him promissory note and also a cheque book. It is required to be seen that PW-1 filed a promissory note allegedly executed by the revision petitioner and it is marked as Ex.P-1. For Ex.P5 notice dated 13-12-1999 issued by the second respondent, there was no reply from the revision petitioner. If really, the second respondent issued notice earlier to Ex.P5, the revision petitioner would have certainly filed the said notice into the court but he did not file any such notice. The second respondent therefore in my view could be able to demonstrate before the trial court that the revision petitioner issued Ex.P2 cheque bearing No. 21199 for Rs.40,000=00 towards discharge of legally enforceable debt and both courts below after thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence arrived at the conclusion that on account of dishonour of the said cheque, the revision petitioner is liable for punishment under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
