08. It is important to note that the complainant even in Ex.P.3 – office copy of legal notice, dated 02.03.2007, sent by registered post under Ex.P.6 – return cover with insufficient address and the original U.C.P. under Ex.P.4, not stated as to on what date he lent the so called Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused but for saying on November 2006 or in November, 2006 instead to give the correct date of lending that too such huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also important to note that even in the complaint much less in his even chief examination affidavit or in his sworn statement for taking cognizance of the complaint, he did not give the date of so called lending in November, 2006 even same is material. He did not show the same in his income tax records. It equally important to note that he knows very well of any amount beyond Rs.20,000/- to be issued by way of cheque. However, the same is oral. As pointed out by the trial court, it is not even his case that he does not know any such Rule in particular Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, as also held by the Apex Court in Krishna Janardan Bhat referred supra, that is referred in para 9 of the trial court’s Judgment that the so called lending of Rs.1,50,000/- for mere asking, without keeping documentary proof and without presence of any witness, from mere knowing of the parties. There is nothing to show how he got sufficient funds to believe much less produced any account books or how he got so much amount, if drawn from any bank, etc., that too when Rs.20,000/- or more to be lend by way of cheque. Apart
