A perusal of the complaint itself shows that no date, month or year has been mentioned when this liability arose. There is no particular qua the liability in the complaint. No date, month or year had been mentioned as to when the amount was taken as a loan or otherwise liability arose. No security document had been taken at the time when this amount was given to the accused/respondent No.2. There is no document on the record to show the transaction in question. The trial Court held that before adjudicating the present case, it would be appropriate to mention that present case is one of the five cases which had been filed by the present complainant and his son Kasturi Lal against accused. In all of those five cases, a total of eight cheques are involved. It is also held that four cheques of 49,000/- each had been allegedly issued by the accused to Kasturi Lal and his father i.e. present complainant-Som Nath (since deceased) on account of friendly loan taken by the accused from the complainant and his father. Four cheques for an amount of 1 Lakh each, as detailed in the judgment, had been allegedly issued by the accused to Kasturi Lal on account of consideration amount for purchase of truck from Kasturi Lal. The trial Court while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay v. Laxman and another, 2013 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1028, held that where the complainant alleges that the cheque was issued for repayment of loan and where no document or other material has been
