Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 – ss.118(a), 138 and 139 – Complainant case was that he gave a hand loan of Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused – Accused gave a cheque dated 27.02.2012 for Rs.6,00,000/- but the same was returned by the bank with the endorsement ‘Funds Insufficient’ on 01.03.2012 – Complaint was filed – Trial court acquitted the accused for the offence u/s. 138 of the Act on basis that complainant failed to prove his financial capacity – However, the High Court set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted the accused for the offence u/s.138 – Accused questioned financial capacity of the complainant alleging that complainant had retired in the year 1997 and had encashed his retirement benefits of Rs.8,00,000/- and made a payment of Rs.4,50,000/- for an agreement to sale in the year 2010 – Besides that, during the period from 2009 to Nov, 2011 complainant made several other payments to different persons – On appeal, held: Complainant admitted that he had received monetary benefit of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was encashed – Complainant also admitted that he made payment of Rs.4,50,000/- – During the crossexamination of the complainant, he did not give satisfactory reply regarding his financial capacity to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the accused – Evidence on record indicate that within two years, amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was given out by the complainant to different persons – It was incumbent on the complainant to have explained his financial capacity – Thus, evidence on record, was a probable defence on behalf of the accused, which shifted the burden on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and other facts – The findings of the trial court that complainant failed to prove his financial capacity was based on evidence led by the defence – Thus, observations of the High Court unsustainable – Judgment of the trial Court restored.