JUDGMENT : The complainant in S.T.No.72/2004 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2006, whereby the accused/1st respondent was acquitted in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard Sri. K.M. Sathyanatha Menon, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Sri.P.Venugopal, learned counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3. According to the appellant, the 1st respondent had borrowed Rs.50,000/- in October 2003 and for securing repayment of the amount, a cheque had been issued, which when sent for collection returned dishonoured for the reason 'fund insufficient'. When no payment was made even after the appellant had issued the statutory notice, the complaint is said to have been filed. The accused contended that during 1994, he was having a bus service and he used to purchase tyre from the shop of one Major Nikkolas and to secure the payment of the price of tyres, he had given blank cheque, which has been misused. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the signature in the cheque is admitted, he is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden is on the 1st respondent to rebut the said presumption. Learned counsel further submits that the 1st respondent has failed to rebut the said presumption and hence he is liable to be found guilty. 4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that he has had no financial transaction with the complainant at any point of time and that there is no legally enforceable debt for which he is liable to the complainant. He points out that in cross examination, the complainant has admitted that he is working in a tyre shop named PMH Automobiles. He has further stated during the cross examination that the accused owes money towards the price of tyre for which there is a civil case pending and that the amount involved in the civil case has also not been received. It is specifically stated that the accused had written his name and the amount in the cheque in his presence using the pen, which he had with him. It is specifically stated that the accused had written his name and the amount in the cheque in his presence using the pen, which he had with him. Regarding the above statement made by the appellant, the counsel for the respondent points out that it can be seen from Ext.P1 cheque that the name of the payee and the amount in words as well as in figures as well as the date on the cheque are type written and not written by hand. The complainant has also stated during cross examination that he is receiving a salary of only Rs.3,000/-. 5. I find considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The court below has considered these aspects and found that the case put forward by the accused is more believable and that it cannot be believed that the complainant had lent a sum of Rs.50,000/-to a person whom he has seen only from the tyre shop, when the accused came to purchase tyres. It has come out during cross examination that the complainant does not know any details about the accused and his specific case that the accused had issued a cheque filled by him personally in hand, in the presence of the complainant is disproved by Ext.P1 cheque itself. The court below also noticed the fact that the accused was the President of Mongam Grama Panchayat. 6. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused has not tendered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant has failed to prove even the execution of the cheque since his very specific case that it was a cheque written using a pen in his presence is disproved by Ext.P1 cheque itself. I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment dated 14.02.2006 in S.T.No.72/2004 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri. Appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.