is not filed along with the complaint. The Court below observed that there was a categorical statement in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused executed a promissory note for Rs.40,000/ - agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum. Hence, the promissory note becomes the basic document for the cheque, as it is issued towards discharge of the debt under the promissory note. The reason for not producing the promissory note is not stated by the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that he either lost the promissory note or that he filed a suit based on the promissory note in order to understand that there was some good reason for him not to file the promissory note. If there is no supporting document for the debt, perhaps, believing the evidence of P.W.1, a presumption with regard to the cheque being issued towards legally enforceable debt could have been drawn. But by virtue of his own lapse in not producing the promissory note, which is the basis for issuance of the cheque, he fails in proving his case, that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. Hence, in view of the above, this Court opines that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Court below.
