JUDGMENT H.G. RAMESH, J.—Appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of JMFC V, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada in CC 2908/2003. 2. The complainant is a Finance Corporation. The accused are the partners of Indus Construction and they have issued the cheque for Rs. 14,45,298/- on 20.2.2003 drawn on Bank of Baroda. The cheque was returned as ‘account closed’, on presentation. After issuance of legal notice, due to non-payment, complaint was filed. The trial Court after inquiry, dismissed the complaint. Hence, this appeal. Heard the counsel representing the parties. 3. Admittedly, there is transaction between the parties and the complainant being a company, is bound to maintain records as to lending of amount and instalment if any, received from the borrower. The trial Court has noted that complainant has not mentioned the date on which the accused have borrowed the loan either in the complaint or in the notice and there is nothing whispered even in the affidavit evidence. As such, opportunity was given to the complainant to produce documents and the witness has deposed to the effect that without looking into the accounts he could not mention what is the date on which the loan was lent. Rather, the accused himself has filed an application seeking for return of the document from the complainant. The complainant also had sought for producing certain documents regarding the loan transaction, but, it was not produced. However, at the instance of the accused, those documents were got marked. 4. What is being noted is, P.W. 1 has admitted that they have paid Rs. 1 lakh by way of cheque and there is an entry in the pass book at Ex. D4 and the remaining Rs. 2 lakhs was paid in cash. Noting the evidence of the complainant that he has admitted in the cross-examination to the effect that, amount was paid in one instalment, but according to the complainant, they had paid Rs. 3 lakhs to the accused and Ex. D3 is the on demand promissory note wherein the amount mentioned is Rs. 3 lakhs. The trial Court having doubted the veracity of the complaint’s version as to why Rs. 1 lakh amount was paid through cheque and Rs. 2 lakhs by cash though it is a registered company and, no document is produced to show that Rs. D3 is the on demand promissory note wherein the amount mentioned is Rs. 3 lakhs. The trial Court having doubted the veracity of the complaint’s version as to why Rs. 1 lakh amount was paid through cheque and Rs. 2 lakhs by cash though it is a registered company and, no document is produced to show that Rs. 2 lakhs was paid in cash and, also noting that they have not produced the ledger extracts and cash book for the corresponding financial year and, even if the accused have borrowed Rs. 3 lakhs as per Ex. D3 with interest at 24%, observing that it would not come to Rs. 14,45,298/- for a period of six years from 1997-2003, opined that at the most, it would be around Rs. 4,40,000/-. It has also noted that there is material alteration in the cheque at Ex. P1. 5. The amount due to the complainant by the accused as per the cheque transaction is only Rs. 1 lakh because as per the accounts maintained by the complainant, the amount paid by them through cheque is only Rs. 1 lakh. Admittedly when they had to transact through cheque being a company, they have not produced sufficient material for having lent Rs. 2 lakhs by securing on demand promissory note and, was it permissible to maintain unaccounted money so as to lend, is not made clear by them. Of course, presumption could be raised in favour of the complainant when material is produced that he has paid the amount through cheque for Rs. 1 lakh. As a matter of reasoning, the trial Court has not admitted the veracity of the complainant’s version. Might be that the presumption is in favour of the complainant that cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt. However, when even according to the complainant, they have paid Rs. 1 lakh through cheque and the remaining amount by way of cash, if any, by securing on demand promissory note, there was no impediment for them to claim that amount through the civil Court. 6. Be that as it may. What is being observed by the trial Court is, there is some material alteration in the cheque. The exaggerated amount so mentioned in the cheque by presenting it for realization does not tally with the amount due by the accused, as per the material on record. 6. Be that as it may. What is being observed by the trial Court is, there is some material alteration in the cheque. The exaggerated amount so mentioned in the cheque by presenting it for realization does not tally with the amount due by the accused, as per the material on record. In that view of the matter, as rightly noted by the trial Court, there is no legally enforceable debt as mentioned in the cheque as such, the claim of the complainant that they are entitled for Rs. 14,45,298/- is without any basis much less it cannot have the sanctity of a legal enforcement for the sum mentioned in the cheque. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality in dismissing the complaint. 7. Further, the amount borrowed by the accused is said to have been repaid by them in instalments. Even on the cheque there is an endorsement that Rs. 1 lakh has been received on 24.10.1996. Such being the case, what remains is only the interest. In the interest of justice, it is ordered that accused shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- in the company’s name, to the complainant towards interest, within two months. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.