ORDER K. Sreedhar Rao, J. 1. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that the respondent has given hand-loan of Rs. 53,000/- to the petitioner and the he has issued a post dated cheque as a security. The said cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient of funds. The respondent has filed a complaint U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The complainant has admitted that the accused-petitioner admits the issuance of cheque however, contends that he has delivered the blank cheque with his signature and other material contents are not filled up. The other material contents have been filled by the respondent which are false and that the cheque was issued as a security there is no debt or loan taken. It is further case that the cheque was delivered in respect of some other transaction. 3. The trial Court has found that since the issuance of cheque is admitted and the presumption would arise U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. The petitioner-accused is convicted and sentenced to S.I. for a period of one year and directed to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the complainant. The appellate Court has confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. 4. In para No. 19, the appellate Court has made the following observations: "The admitted facts of the accused itself is sufficient to show that Ex. P-1 was issued by him to the complainant and then presumption has to be drawn against him that it is for legally recoverable dues payable by him to the complainant and that he failed to make arrangement for encashment of the said amount. In the result it has to be held that the complainant has established this case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts." 5. The accused-petitioner aggrieved by the said order has filed this petition. 6. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2006 (3) Crimes 117 (SC) in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs. State of Kerala & Anr., to contend that the cheque issued as security u/s. 138 of N.I. Act would not apply. 7. On thorough consideration of the submission made at the bar and on going through the decision cited and the ratio led down is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. On thorough consideration of the submission made at the bar and on going through the decision cited and the ratio led down is not applicable to the facts of the case. The Supreme Court has found that in evidence, it was proved that the major portion of the amount claimed to be a part of the debt was not due to the complainant by the accused. It was as a fact established that major portion of the amount reflected in the cheque was not due as a debt. In that context, it is held that the cheque issued as security for any other purpose would not come within the purview of 138 of N.I. Act. 8. It is obvious that when the amount mentioned in the cheque is more than the debt liability, the cheque so issued cannot be considered as the one issued towards discharge of debt or liability of the amount as mentioned in the cheque. Therefore, dishonour of cheque obviously does not attract Sec. 138 of N.I. Act. 9. As matter of routine, it is the common place in the litigation U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act that defence is taken to the effect that cheque is issued as security or collateral security. The cheque is a negotiable instrument which means by endorsement and delivery, the said document can be transferred in favour of other person who would be called as holder or holder in due course as the case may be. The cheque is a primary loan document to prove the liability U/s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 10. The word Security, Collateral Security, Secured Loan in Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, is explained as follows; Security:- 1. Collateral given or pledged to guarantee the fulfillment of an obligation; esp, the assurance that a creditor will be repaid (usu. with interest) any money or credit extended to a debtor (Cases: Secured Transaction) 2. A person who is bound by some type of guaranty; Surety. 3. The state of being secure, esp. from danger or attack. 4. An instrument that evidences the holder's ownership rights in a firm (e.g. a stock), the holder's creditor relationship with a firm or government (e.g. a bond) or the holder's other rights (e.g. an option). A security indicates an interest based on an investment in a common enterprise rather than direct participation in the enterprise. from danger or attack. 4. An instrument that evidences the holder's ownership rights in a firm (e.g. a stock), the holder's creditor relationship with a firm or government (e.g. a bond) or the holder's other rights (e.g. an option). A security indicates an interest based on an investment in a common enterprise rather than direct participation in the enterprise. Under an important statutory definition, a security is any interest or instrument relating to finances, including a note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of interest or participation in a profit-sharing agreement, collateral trust certificate, pre-organization certificate or subscription, transferable share, investment contract, voting trust certificate, certificate of deposit for a security, fractional undivided interest in oil, gas or other mineral rights, or certificate of interest or participation in, temporary or interim certificate for, receipt for, guarantee of, or warrant or right to subscribe to or purchase any of these things. A security also includes any put, call, straddle, option or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, group or index of securities, or any such device entered into on a national securities exchange relating to foreign currency. Collateral Security:- 1. A security, subordinate to and given in addition to primary security, that is intended to guarantee the validity or convertibility of the primary security." The dictionary meaning of Security in Oxford English Reference Dictionary, Indian Edition is as follows; 4. a thing deposited or pledged as a guarantee of the fulfillment of an undertaking or the payment of a loan, to be forfeited in case of default. 11. The word 'Security' or 'Collateral Security' has a definite legal connotation. Apart from the primary/basic document evidencing the loan, if any other movable or immovable properties are offered as guarantee for repayment of the loan, then such additional offering other than the primary/basic document would constitute security within the meaning of law. The pro-note or a cheque does not constitute security. Because they have no inherent tangible asset value unlike movable or immovable properties offered as pledge or mortgage. It is only additional offerings like movable and immovable properties by pledge or mortgage if offered they would constitute as security or collateral security. 12. The pro-note or a cheque does not constitute security. Because they have no inherent tangible asset value unlike movable or immovable properties offered as pledge or mortgage. It is only additional offerings like movable and immovable properties by pledge or mortgage if offered they would constitute as security or collateral security. 12. That apart the cheque issued by endorsement and delivery to the payee, if dishonoured and the said fact is established, the presumption would arise U/s. 138 of N.I. Act to the effect that the cheque is issued towards discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability and the said provision relating to the presumption would categorically suggest that the cheque so issued would constitute a primary loan document to evidence the loan along with pro-note or a bond, if any executed in that behalf. Otherwise if no bond or pronote is executed and only cheque is issued the cheque alone constitutes a loan document and it cannot be under any circumstances considered as a security. In fact, if any other Negotiable Instruments Act other than the cheque is dishonoured, no prosecution would lie U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. It is only in respect of dishonour of cheque, the prosecution would lie. In that view the cheque under any circumstances issued, cannot be considered as a security and it would constitute a primary loan document in so far as the provisions U/s. 138 of N.I. Act. Therefore, the cheque so issued cannot be contended or considered as the one issued as a security. 13. The defence contention that blank cheque is issued and duly signed by payer, therefore, it is not a valid issuance of a cheque is untenable, because such a blank signed cheque would be an inchoate negotiable instrument. But it is still a valid negotiable instrument, because the drawer of cheque obviously delivers a duly signed inchoate cheque to the payee with a liberty to fill the blanks regarding the amount. If the payee fills up the contents regarding particulars of the payee or the amount contrary to the agreement and understanding, in which event issuance of such cheque it would be vitiated as a void or voidable instrument. In such case the onus would be on the drawer to establish the said fact and it is a matter of evidence. If the payee fills up the contents regarding particulars of the payee or the amount contrary to the agreement and understanding, in which event issuance of such cheque it would be vitiated as a void or voidable instrument. In such case the onus would be on the drawer to establish the said fact and it is a matter of evidence. In the instant case there is no pleading that amount mentioned in the cheque is contrary to the liability agreed. The order of the Courts below are sound and proper and no reason to interfere with the order of the appellate court.