respondent on 03.04.2013 for her urgent family expenses and business expenses. She also agreed to repay the same within a month. After one month, the respondent demanded to repay the loan, for which the petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for collection, the same was returned dishonoured for the reason 'funds insufficient'. After receipt of the statutory notice, the petitioner failed to reply the same. Though she had taken a stand that the respondent would take her for finance to a private financiers, and for such borrowal in turn she used to issue cheque and those cheques were misused by the respondent, the petitioner failed to produce any material evidence to substantiate the said contention. She examined her husband as D.W.1. He also deposed that he used to borrow money from the respondent and used to borrow loan from the private financiers. Therefore, there is nothing to attribute to evidence of D.W.1 to disprove the case of the respondent in order to rebut the presumption. The further stand of the petitioner is that the alleged cheques were stolen by the respondent. Even then, she did not prefer any complaint so far. Only for the purpose of defence, the petitioner had taken such a stand without any
