contained in the complaint. He successfully proved on record that he advanced loan to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000/- to the accused, who, with a view to discharge his lawful liability, issued cheque Ex.CW2/B, but same was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the accused vide return memo dated 13.02.2019 (Ex.CW2/C). He further proved on record that prior to initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act , he had issued legal notice Ex.CW2/E, calling upon the accused to make the payment good within stipulated time. Factum of service of aforesaid legal notice also stands duly established on proved by placing on record postal receipt Ex.CW2/F, acknowledgment Ex.CW2/C and tracking report Ex. CW2/H. Cross-examination conducted upon this witness, if perused in its entirety, clearly suggests that at no point of time accused was able to extract anything contrary to what this witness stated in his examination-in-chief. Though, with a view to refute the claim of the complainant, accused attempted to set up a case that he had not issued cheque amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-, rather cheque was of Rs. 50,000/-, however same was misused by the respondentcomplainant, who after issuance of cheque added one more zero in the amount, but no cogent and convincing evidence ever came to be led on record by the accused to prove aforesaid defence.
