(A) The complainant has taken the specific contention that she had sufficient source of income at the time of lending of the amount of Rs.5 lakhs to the accused in as much as Rs.3,60,000/- was obtained by her as a claim in a motor accident case relating to the death of her brother and that an additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was in her possession. But, the court below has found that except making these oral assertions, the complainant has not produced any convincing materials whatsoever to prove her case that she had received compensation amount of Rs.3,60,000/- on account of her brother's death in a motor vehicle accident and further that she had Rs.1,40,000/- in her possession at the relevant time for the borrowal transaction. If as a matter of fact, the complainant had received Rs.3,60,000/as compensation in the motor accident claim, certainly, there would have been documents to prove that aspect that she had excess of funds. So also, the documents like bank records and other related aspects could have easily proved if in fact, she had surplus funds of Rs.1,40,000/- at the time of the borrowal transaction. The trial court found that the complainant is working as a post woman in the Koodali Post Office and her monthly salary is hardly about Rs.10,300/- and that in the ordinary state of affairs, it will be very difficult for her to raise
