some documents for security purpose. However, the appellant did not even receive any document as security, while lending the loan in favour of the respondent. That apart, the complaint lodged by the respondent in respect of the stolen of cheque, the appellant's father was enquired by the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station. The Manager of the bank was examined as D.W.2. He also categorically deposed that Ex.D.1 was duly honoured in favour of a third party issued by the respondent. However, Ex.P.3 was returned for the reason “insufficient funds”. It was presented after so many years, from the date of issuance, however, the subsequent cheques were duly honoured. It shows that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt. Therefore,the respondent categorically rebutted the presumption arising out of under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Further, the appellant must prove the guilt of an accused beyond any reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is preponderance of 'probabilities'. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies.'
