JUDGMENT : ASHOK MENON, J. 1. The complainant in C.C. No. 247/2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode, aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused under Section 255(1), Cr.P.C. for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act for short) is in appeal impugning the judgment of the learned Magistrate dated 19.09.2006. 2. The facts in brief are thus: The accused allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant sometime in April, 2001 from her residence. After three years on 08.04.2003, he issued Ext.P1 cheque drawn on his account maintained with the Syndicate Bank, Mavoor Road Branch for the borrowed amount. On being presented, the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds as evidenced by Ext.P2. Statutory notice as Ext.P3 was issued to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount, to which the accused sent a reply containing untenable contentions and refrained from paying the amount within the time stipulated. Hence the complaint. 3. The accused denied the transaction with the complainant altogether. However, he admits the signature on Ext.P1 cheque. According to him, he had borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the husband of the accused in the year 1991, and had entrusted a blank signed cheque as security. Though he discharged that debt, he did not get the cheque returned. The complainant has concocted Ext.P1 cheque given to her husband and filed this complaint. The accused has also testified before the Court as DW1 in support of his defence version. Ext.D1 is the copy of the reply notice which was sent by him and Ext.D2 is the passbook pertaining to his account. The defence is that Ext.P1 cheque could never have been issued in 2003 as alleged because, one cheque immediately preceding Ext.P1 cheque, is seen presented on 27.10.1991. All the cheques in the cheque book were issued between 1991 and 1994 and hence, the possibility of retaining Ext.P1 alone to be issued to the complainant in the year 2003 is remote. The ink used for the entries made in Ext.P1 cheque differs from the ink used to put the signature of the accused, which also would support the probability of the case of the defence, is the argument of the defence Counsel. 4. There is no doubt that the initial burden of the lending of money is on the complainant. The ink used for the entries made in Ext.P1 cheque differs from the ink used to put the signature of the accused, which also would support the probability of the case of the defence, is the argument of the defence Counsel. 4. There is no doubt that the initial burden of the lending of money is on the complainant. The complainant's case is that she had obtained some money in connection with sale of her property and had retained it for the purpose of her daughter's wedding. There is neither any evidence regarding the selling of her property nor is there any evidence regarding the daughter's marriage. It is also highly improbable that an amount which was retained by her to meet the expenses of the marriage of her daughter in 2001 would be lend to the accused, even without any proof or a scrap of paper. And despite such pressing need, she waited for three years to get Ext.P1 cheque from the accused. The delay is not explained. It is also surprising that the cheque for the very same amount that was borrowed without adding any interest to it. It cannot be assumed that the accused and complainant are in such cordial terms that the complainant had waived the interest, despite the accused keeping the money for three years. 5. The learned Magistrate has observed that the accused has succeeded in bringing out the improbabilities of the complainant's case. 6. I find the reasoning of the learned Magistrate is acceptable. The burden of the accused in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 is based on preponderance of probabilities. In case the accused is successful in establishing that the case as set up by the complainant is not probable, the presumption in favour of the complainant stands rebutted. The circumstances referred to above would cast a shadow of doubt on the alleged transaction of lending money to the complainant. I therefore find not reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the finding of the learned Magistrate. 7. The appeal is dismissed.