Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The trial Court considering the defence held that the alleged transaction with said Babu is of the year 2011 and the complaint against the said Babu for claiming exorbitant interest has no relevance to the subject transaction. Regarding the allegations that the statutory notice was sent to the wrong address malafidely disbelieved by the trial Court after verifying the Court record that when the summons from the Court sent to the very same address, the accused received it and the postal endorsement of the statutory notice also does not say the 'addressee left' but only intimation left 'unclaimed'. Regarding the financial capacity of the complainant to advance Rs.4,00,000/- as loan, the trial Court taking note of the fact that during the cross examination, the complainant said that he had paid Rs.4,00,000/- in instalments and therefore, that may not be the ground to shift the burden of proof.