was insisting for repayment of loan amount, which was outstanding against complainant. The defence of the respondent was that at the relevant time, the complainant paid an amount towards part of payment of loan amount and immediately, therefore, he directed issuance of receipts to him by the staff member i.e. D.W.1 Kalyan Sing Pawar. It is pertinent to note that the complainant himself admits that at the relevant time, the respondent immediately told him to obtain the receipt of the said amount and left the premises of the office. According to the respondent, he was in hurry to attend the meeting, and therefore, he directed issuance of receipt of amount by D.W. 1-Kalyan Singh Pawar. Considering the admissions of the complainant and statement of D.W. 1-Kalyan Sigh Pawar, the defence is duly probablised. Secondly, the evidence on record purports to show that the notices were already issued to the guarantors. Obviously, there was no reason for the complainant to request the respondent to stop issuance of notices in order to avoid the trouble which the complainant was likely to receive from guarantors. Nor the guarantors have come forward to say that due to issuance of notices, they were after the complainant. Considering attending circumstances, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion that the defence of respondent is porbablised. Under the circumstances his acquittal
