9.A perusal of the records revealed that the respondent was doing vending business and he had not acquaintance with the appellant. There was no business transaction between them. In the month of June 2012, the respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- as loan from Durgayamman Finance. For the said loan, the respondent has issued a cheque and pro-note. As per the conditions, the respondent ought to have pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Accordingly, daily the respondent had paid a sum of Rs.300/- for 100 days. Thereafter, on the very same cheque and pro-note, he borrowed another sum of Rs.40,000/-, in which, he returned only a sum of Rs.26,000/- and there was balance of Rs.14,000/-. Since he fell illness and as such, he could not able to pay the same. Therefore, the said cheque was handed over to the appellant and the same was misused by him and initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I Act. Therefore,the respondent had also lodged a complaint and the same was marked as Ex.D.1. In fact on the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted and the counter-party had categorically admitted that he had received two cheques from the respondent for the loan availed by the respondent herein. D.W.2 also deposed as follows: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/7
