by the cheque was disputed by the revision petitioner. In the reply notice also, the revision petitioner had a contention that the cheque in question was issued as a security and the amount covered by the cheque was not due to the complainant. It is settled law that the accused can take any number of contentions. However, he must be able to prove at least one of his contentions by the yardstick of preponderance of probabilities and possibilities from the materials on record. In this case, the sum and substance of the contention of the revision petitioner is that the cheque in question was issued as a security and the amount covered by the said cheque was not due to the complainant as on the date of the cheque. During the cross-examination of PW1 also the revision petitioner had taken the same contention. Even then, the complainant did not incline to produce the details of the account of the revision petitioner relating to the transaction involved in this case to prove that the amount covered by Ext. P1 cheque was due to the complainant from the revision petitioner on the date when the cheque was issued. In the said circumstances, it cannot
