llurthcr, rl-rcrc is no relcrcnce as to the s<,rurcc of lunds much less filing of rnc.r.r-tc tax returns. Irurthermorc, [rrr.ie 'di.g thc am.unts, the complair-ranr should have had rnoncr. lcndcrs liccnsc but such liccnsc was n()t placcd on the rccords. In aclclition, rl.rc cornplainanr bcing a (iovcrnmcnt cmplciycc cannot lcncl huec a6rr>pnts ruth6ut prior pcrmission of the appropriare Gor.e r.rnc't. .r.hus, rhc complainant failed to prove the casc and drscharuc thc: burdcn, as such, conviction .[ the accused is untenablc a.ci liablc t. be set aside lru'ther, the rcvision peritioner cited f.ro*,rng autrroriries, a,d submittcd that, (a) In ,, Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa,^ the [ .rn'blc r\pe x (i.urr held that, rvhcn r'c c.nr.lrrinan t leiiccl r, saris factorilv explain thc c.ntradicdors in t'c complaint, ancr, [ailcd to prove thc Frnancial capacities, trre accuscd is enudcd fcrr acquittal. (:;) In "Mrts.Sti Sai l{aruna Finance anrl Enrcrprises thouglt its Manag.ing Partnet G.Gang.adhar Alizamabad Vs. Smt. N. Sandhyarani and anothe! this Court caregrricallv hcid that, when ir is highlv unbclici,ablc that thc complainanr coulcl lcnd huge amounts on11. 6n the checlue v,.ithout obraining anv criliatcral
