arranged from his pension account and some amount had been brought by him from his village out of farming business. CW1 deposed that he did not remember the exact date, month and year when he advanced the loan amount to the accused and when accused had handed over cheque in question to him. CW1 claimed that the accused had given duly filled cheque in question to him and he denied suggestion of filling the contents of cheque in question. However, careful scanning of cheque in question reflects that the signature and remaining contents of cheque in question had been put with different pens in view of the deepness of colour of ink. It indicates that accused might have given signed blank cheque. Complainant also admitted during his cross examination that he had advanced loan in question in cash and it is also reflected in para 2 of his written original complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. However, Ld. Counsel for the complainant seeks to rely upon bank statement Ex. CW1/X and Ex. CWI/Y wherein Rs. 30,000/- & Rs. 50,000/- had been transferred to some Manohar on 17.02.2015 and 03.05.2013 respectively. In such circumstances, the claim of complainant as to he advanced loan in question only in two installments and that too in cash only for a period of three months only does not get support from his said bank statements. Further, complainant is admittedly a retired banker, having his pension account and knowledge of well accounted banking transaction mode of payment and he had paid such huge amount of money in cash that too without any receipt. Complainant did not explain as to why he had not opted any well aware safer and accounted mode of payment and why he had allegedly advanced such huge loan in question to the accused in cash only that too without execution of any documentary proof or securing any eye witness to the alleged transaction in question. Complainant neither examined any witness to the alleged transaction nor filed any receipt or pronote reflecting loan transaction in question. Complainant had also not examined any eye witness to the alleged transaction. On other hand, accused has just to probabilize his defence with balance of probability and he may do the same by exposing the material contradiction and infirmities in the case of complainant even without entering himself into witness box. In these circumstances, case of complainant appears to be improbable in given facts and
