was executed at that point of time and the said promissory note had been returned at the time when Exhibit P1 cheque was issued. At no stage, in his deposition, the complainant made an attempt to make it clear that the amount of Rs.1Lakh which he has referred to is relatable to Exhibit P1 cheque and that the total amount which the accused borrowed from the complainant is an amount of Rs.2Lakhs. This becomes crucial in assessing the credibility of the version given by PW1. Apart from Exhibit P1, there is no other contemporaneous evidence to show that an amount of Rs.1Lakh or 2Lakhs, as the case may be, was advanced by the complainant to accused. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that irrespective of the quantum of the amount borrowed, there is an admission by the accused that there was actually a transaction between the complainant and the accused, though according to the accused, the amount borrowed was only Rs.25,000/-. He contented, therefore, the cheque must be treated as supported by consideration, which is sufficient for the purpose of making out an offence punishable under section 138 of the Act.
