interest @ 24% per annum either to the complainant or his order on demand and that on demands made for repayment of the said loan, the accused issued a cheque, dated 26.04.2007, for Rs.3,00,000/- drawn on the Lakshmi Vilas Bank Limited, Vijayawada, towards part payment of the said loan and that on presentation of the said cheque for collection through the banker of the complainant i.e., Dena Bank, Prakasam Road, Governorpet Branch, Vijayawada, the cheque was returned dishonoured with the endorsement ‘insufficient funds’. Be that as it may, after such dishonour and return of the cheque with the memo of the banker, admittedly, the complainant issued a notice to the father of the accused and not to the accused. The said notice, dated 15.10.2007, addressed to the father of the accused, on a perusal, discloses that the complainant stated in the said notice that the father of the accused borrowed the money and issued the cheque. It is an admitted fact that the father of the accused gave a reply notice, dated 27.10.2007, stating that he did not borrow any amount from the complainant and never executed the promissory note. In the said reply notice, the father of the accused inter alia stated as follows: ‘He and his wife jointly borrowed Rs.20,000/in the year 2004 from one Smt.Kolipakula Durga Mahalakshmi, who is no other than the wife of the complainant, and executed a promissory note and that at that time two blank cheques bearing Nos.788635 and 772425 were issued towards security and that taking
