she borrowed Rs.25,000/- on 25.05.2008 for the admission of her son to the school. But the complainant in his cross-examination has denied the fact that he has lent Rs.25,000/- to the accused on 25.05.2008. But the accused in her evidence had taken the definite stand that she borrow Rs.25,000/- on 25.05.2008 by issuing 3 signed blank cheques to the complainant agreeing to repay the loan with interest at 4% per annum. To substantiate this contention the accused has produced 13 Bank Challens. As seen from these documents, the accused used to credit Rs.1000/-, Rs.4000/-, Rs.400/- to the Bank account of the complainant. She says that these Bank challens are towards the repayment of the installments of the loan of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by the accused. Ex.D1 is one of the Bank Challen which is dated 26.9.2008. Ex.D2 and D3 is dated 1.12.2008, Ex.D5 is dated 15.12.2008, Ex.D4 is dated 5.1.2009. That means, the accused used to deposit certain amount to the account of the complainant, even prior to the 1st week of January 2009 when Rs.2,50,000/- said to be lend to the accused. As seen from the Bank Challen in Ex.D4 in the 1st week of January 2009 itself, the accused had deposited Rs.1000/- to the account of the complainant. When such being the case, it is hard to believe that the complainant had lent Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused in the 1st week of January 2009 itself. In the same month on 28.1.2009 also the accused had deposited Rs.1000/- to the account of the complainant. The documents produced by the accused go to show that the accused was due to pay certain amount to the complainant as on the alleged date of lending Rs.2,50,000/- to her. When such being the case, whether it can be believed that the complainant had paid huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the accused, when she was due to pay certain amount to him. It is also strange to say that the complainant has also lend such huge amount without taking any document from the
