cannot be found fault with for having taken the approach that there is no successful challenge as against the financial capacity of the complainant for the borrowal transaction. The courts below have also noted that one of the specific defence of the accused was to the effect that there was no financial transaction between the complainant and accused in June, 2010, as alleged in the complaint and that the only transaction was one by which the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from one Balachandran, the agent of the complainant, and the said amount was received by the accused by way of a cheque of the Kozhikode District Co-operative Bank, etc., and that the said amount was repaid and the blank signed cheque given by him as security has been misused, etc. Whereas the specific case asserted by the complainant in his complaint was to the effect that the only transaction that took place between the parties was for an amount Rs.3 lakhs and that the other transaction of Rs.1.5 lakhs has not taken place at all. In these circumstances, both the courts below have taken the view that if as a matter of fact, there was another transaction by which the accused had received Rs.1.5 lakhs through a cheque of a bank, then the accused would have easily produced documentary evidence and the details of
