lawweb.in http://www.lawweb.in/2015/03/whether-money-lender-not-having-valid.html

Whether money lender not having valid money lending licensecan file dishonour of cheque case?

Therefore, on the same analogy, once it is proved and theentire facts that the alleged Bahi entries are notnegotiable instruments, which can be enforced, not alonesufficient to charge any person with liability, sequelly, thecomplainant was legally debarred to recover the allegedloan, as envisaged under the indicated provisions of theMoney lender's Act and in view of such legal disabilitiesattached to the complaint, as discussed here-in-above,are put together, then, in that eventuality, to my mind, theconclusion is irresistible and inescapable that he(complainant) cannot adhere to initiate the criminalprosecution against the respondent within the meaningand in the garb of complaint u/s. 138 of the NI Act. Hence,the trial Court has correctly acquitted the respondent, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.6.2014,which, in substance, is as under (paras 16 & 17):-

"16. Section 3 of the Act provides that the suit by a money lender for recovery of loan, lent within avalid license, shall be dismissed. Now the court was required to ascertain whether Section 3 of theAct would cover a complaint filed under Negotiable Instruments Act or not. To decide the same,reliance has to be placed upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, provisions ofBombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and object behind the passing of the Punjab Registration ofMoney-lenders' Act as applicable to Haryana. Under the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 thesuit filed by a money lender for recovery of loan without a valid license has to be dismissed. TheHon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled as Smt. Nandc v. Nandkishor, MANU/MH/0069/2010:2011 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 697 : 2010 (2) CCC 288 (Bombay) has held that the word "in any suit"are wider in scope and embrace any suit or proceeding initiated by a money lender who isrequired to hold and prove valid license for money lending for the relevant period of loantransaction or transactions. The Hon'ble High court held that the complaint filed by a money lenderunder Negotiable Instruments Act has also to be dismissed as the debt amounts to anunenforceable claim under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In addition to this, the intentand object of the legislature behind the enactment of the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders' Actas applicable to Haryana appears to bar the rights of a money lender, lending money without avalid license, for recovering the loan amount in any manner. Therefore, any proceeding wherebythe money lender would be intending to recover the loan amount, lent without a valid license,would be also barred. Had it not been the case, the legislature would not have debarred the moneylender from filing a suit for recovery of loan amount.Therefore, the claim by money lender (complainant) against borrower (accused) without avalid and operative money lending license covering period of transaction as unenforceableclaim under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAC.R.A. No. A-1101-MA of 2014Decided On: 13.11.2014Appellants: Narsi DassVs.Respondent: SurenderHon'ble Judges/Coram:Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.

http://www.lawweb.inhttp://www.lawweb.in/2015/03/whether-money-lender-not-having-valid.htmlhttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YxvZC6FA-ik/VQmMIIllFfI/AAAAAAAACmE/RZA71bEe7iA/s1600/HY09MONEY_1292638f.jpghttp://www.lawweb.in/2015/03/whether-money-lender-not-having-valid.htmlhttp://www.lawweb.in/2015/03/whether-money-lender-not-having-valid.html

Citation: 2015ALLMR(Cri)114, 2015(1)RCR(Civil)108

1. The matrix of the facts & evidence, unfolded during the course of trial, which needs a necessarymention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition forleave to appeal and emanating from the record, is that initially, petitioner-complainant Narsi Dasss/o. Kartar Singh (for brevity "the complainant"), who was running a shop of commission agent,styled as M/s. Ompal Satish Kumar, has instituted a criminal complaint, in which, respondentSurender s/o. Chanda Ram was summoned to face the trial for the commission of an offencepunishable u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the NIAct") by the trial Court. The case set up by the complainant, in brief in so far as relevant, was thatthe respondent was a Farmer at the relevant time. He used to borrow money from him foragricultural purpose with an understanding that he would repay the amount of loan along withinterest at the rate of 24% per annum. At the same time, he had promised to sell his agriculturalproduce at the shop of complainant. Subsequently, he stopped doing so in the year 2010.Thereafter, the complainant requested the respondent to repay the amount borrowed by him alongwith interest. Instead of paying the loan amount, he had issued impugned cheque dated 16.5.2011for ` 1,50,000/- drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nissing in his (complainant's) favour indischarge of part of his liability. The cheque was presented for encashment, but it was returnedunpaid with the remarks "Insufficient Funds", vide memo dated 17.5.2011 by the bank. Thereafter,the statutory legal notice dated 23.5.2011 was served upon the respondent, by virtue of which, hewas called upon to make the payment of the amount of impugned cheque within a stipulatedperiod, but in vain. Then, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent in themanner depicted here-in-above.2. Having completed the codal/statutory procedure of the trial and after closing the evidence by thecomplainant, the statement of the respondent was recorded. The entire incriminatingmaterial/evidence was put to enable him to explain any circumstance appearing against him on therecord, as contemplated under section 313 Cr.P.C. He has stoutly denied the entire evidence ofcomplainant in its totality and termed the pointed complaint as false.3. Likewise, considering the entire oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, thetrial Court dismissed the complaint of complainant and acquitted the respondent from the indicatedoffence, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.6.2014.4. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant has preferred the present petition for leave to appeal tochallenge the impugned judgment of acquittal, invoking the provisions of section 378(4) Cr.P.C.That is how I am seized of the matter.5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, having gone through the evidence on recordwith his valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind,there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.6. At the very outset, it may be added here that the jurisdiction of the appellate Court in case ofacquittal, was determined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a celebrated judgment of Ghurey Lal v.State of U.P., MANU/SC/3223/2008 : 2008 (10) SCC 450. Having considering the scope ofsections 378, 386Cr.P.C. and a line of various judgments on the point, it was ruled as under (Para75):-

"75. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should followthe well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going tooverrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trialcourt's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons"for doing so.A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have"very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's

decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the factsis palpably wrong;ii) The trial court's decision was based on anerroneous view of law;iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in"grave miscarriage of justice";iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealingwith the evidence was patently illegal;v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjustand unreasonable;vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence ormisread the material evidence or has ignoredmaterial documents like dying declarations/report ofthe Ballistic expert, etc.vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, notexhaustive.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight andconsideration to the findings of the trial court.3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads toacquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courtsmust rule in favour of the accused."

7. Above being the legal position and evidence on record, now the short & significant question,though important, which invites an immediate attention of this Court and arises for determination inthis case is as to whether the trial Court has committed such jurisdictional error to acquit therespondent and there are substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the judgment ofacquittal or not in this respect?8. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, to me, the answer mustobviously be in the negative, as the complainant has miserably failed in this relevant connectionand the present petition deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned here-in-below.9. As is evident from the record that the case of complainant from the very beginning was that therespondent was a Farmer at the relevant time. He used to borrow money from him for agriculturalpurpose with an understanding that he would repay the amount of loan along with interest at therate of 24% per annum. At the same time, the respondent had promised to sell his agriculturalproduce at the shop of complainant. Subsequently, he stopped doing so in the year 2010.Thereafter, the complainant filed the instant complaint against him in the indicated manner. Theloan for agricultural purpose was allegedly advanced by the complainant to the respondent and itwas stated to have been entered in the Bahi entries. No evidence, muchless cogent, isforthcoming on record even to suggest remotely, how, when, in what manner, on what date, howmuch amount was advanced, by means of Bahi entries and how much balance amount remains tobe paid by the respondent to the complainant.10. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that such Bahi entries are not the instruments ofadvancement of loan like pronote, bonds or Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforced, asrecognized in the NI Act. These entries are only relevant u/s. 34 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872,that too, in case, the same were kept regularly in the course of business. At the same time, suchBahi entries must be kept in conformity with some known system of accountancy, either in theofficial language or customary language well known to the parties and not otherwise. Where thebooks produced in a case are merely ledgers, these are not supported by any daybook or

roznama, do not contain entries of transactions and there is no daily opening or closing balance,the same are meaningless. Therefore, such Bahi entries cannot and indeed should not be taken tobe account book regularly kept in the course of business, as provided u/s. 34 of The IndianEvidence Act, in view of ratio of law laid down by the Assam High Court in case Chandi Ram Dekav. Jamini Kanta Deka, 1952 AIR (Assam) 92 and Orissa High Court in case Hira Meher andanother v. Birbal Prasad Agarwala, 1958 AIR (Orissa) 4 and are not at all legally enforceable.11. Not only that, it is now well settled principle of law that an entry in the Bahi Khata merely is anadmission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted bythe opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise, which is entirely missing in the instant case. Suchentries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability, in view of ratio of law laid byHon'ble Apex Court in case Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd., MANU/SC/0031/1966 :AIR 1967 Supreme Court 1058 and Rajasthan High Court in case Pit Ram Singh v. VimlaDevi,MANU/RH/0035/1992: 1992 (2) R.C.R. (Rent) 606 : 1992 AIR (Raj.) 149.12. Moreover, it is a matter of very common knowledge that commission agents used to obtainsuch blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legalliability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it. Therefore, once it is ruled that such Bahientries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill ofexchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act, not alonesufficient to charge any person with liability and such cheques were issued as a security of theloan amount, then, the complainant was debarred from filing the complaint u/s. 138 of the NI Actagainst the respondent.13. Sequelly, there is yet another aspect of the matter, which can be viewed entirely from adifferent angle. The case set up by the complainant in his complaint was that he used to advanceloan to the respondent for agricultural purpose from time to time and he was required to repay theloan along with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum. Not only that, he has alsocategorically acknowledged that he used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but hedid not possess any money lender's licence. That means, the complainant was engaged in moneylending business to the public at large and did not possess the money lender's licence.Indisputably, The Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 (hereinafter to be referred as"the Moneylender's Act") is applicable to the State of Haryana by substituting the word "Haryana"by means of Adaptation of Law Order 1968. Section 4(2)postulates that no money lender shallcarry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1).Any money lender, who contravenes these provisions, shall be liable on conviction to a fine notexceeding one thousand rupees for the first offence and two thousand rupees for entrysubsequent offence in this direction.14. Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that notwithstanding anything contained in any otherenactment for the time being in force, a suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan or anapplication by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall, after thecommencement of this Act, be dismissed, unless the money lender at the time of institution of thesuit or presentation of the application for execution or at the time of decreeing the suit or decidingthe application for execution is registered and holds a valid license, in such form and manner asmay be prescribed, which is totally lacking in the present case in this relevant connection.15. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the indicated provisions of social and beneficiallegislation, would reveal that the complainant was only competent to advance agricultural loan if heholds the pointed valid licence/registration certificate. Having a money lender's license is acondition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers. The advancement of loan by thecomplainant to the respondent without any valid licence is not only illegal, but, at the same time, hecan be prosecuted u/s. 4 of the Moneylender's Act as well. Similarly, this Court in case Manjit Kaurv. Vanita,MANU/PH/1731/2009: 2010 (3) RCR (Criminal) 574 and Delhi High Court in case PrajanKumar Jain v. Ravi Malhotra, MANU/DE/2779/2009 : 2010 (3) Civ. C.C. 410, have categoricallyheld that in case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, then, it cannot betermed to have been issued, in lieu of legal enforceable liability/debt within the meaning ofsection 138 of the NI Act.

16. Therefore, on the same analogy, once it is proved and the entire facts that the alleged Bahientries are not negotiable instruments, which can be enforced, not alone sufficient to charge anyperson with liability, sequelly, the complainant was legally debarred to recover the alleged loan, asenvisaged under the indicated provisions of the Money lender's Act and in view of such legaldisabilities attached to the complaint, as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then, in thateventuality, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible and inescapable that he (complainant) cannotadhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent within the meaning and in thegarb of complaint u/s. 138 of the NI Act. Hence, the trial Court has correctly acquitted therespondent, by way of impugned judgment of acquittal dated 4.6.2014, which, in substance, is asunder (paras 16 & 17):-

"16. Section 3 of the Act provides that the suit by a money lender for recovery ofloan, lent within a valid license, shall be dismissed. Now the court was required toascertain whether Section 3 of the Act would cover a complaint filed underNegotiable Instruments Act or not. To decide the same, reliance has to be placedupon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, provisions of BombayMoney Lenders Act, 1946 and object behind the passing of the Punjab Registrationof Money-lenders' Act as applicable to Haryana. Under the Bombay Money LendersAct, 1946 the suit filed by a money lender for recovery of loan without a validlicense has to be dismissed. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case titled as Smt.Nandc v. Nandkishor, MANU/MH/0069/2010 : 2011 (7) R.C.R. (Criminal) 697 : 2010(2) CCC 288 (Bombay) has held that the word "in any suit" are wider in scope andembrace any suit or proceeding initiated by a money lender who is required to holdand prove valid license for money lending for the relevant period of loan transactionor transactions. The Hon'ble High court held that the complaint filed by a moneylender under Negotiable Instruments Act has also to be dismissed as the debtamounts to an unenforceable claim under Section 138 of Negotiable InstrumentsAct. In addition to this, the intent and object of the legislature behind the enactmentof the Punjab Registration of Money-lenders' Act as applicable to Haryana appearsto bar the rights of a money lender, lending money without a valid license, forrecovering the loan amount in any manner. Therefore, any proceeding whereby themoney lender would be intending to recover the loan amount, lent without a validlicense, would be also barred. Had it not been the case, the legislature would nothave debarred the money lender from filing a suit for recovery of loan amount.Therefore, the claim by money lender (complainant) against borrower (accused)without a valid and operative money lending license covering period of transactionas unenforceable claim under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.17. Although, it has been proved that the claim of the complainant was notenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act but to settle the controversy foronce and all, it was essential to decide whether the accused was otherwise underany sort of debt or not. It has been the case of the complainant that the accusedused to take loan from him from time to time. The cheque amount was found to bedue against him. On the other hand, accused has taken a plea that the cheque inquestion was a blank cheque, not supported by any consideration and misused bythe complainant to file a false complaint against him. In the present case, the claimof the complainant was not based upon a single transaction and the liabilityof `1,50,000/- was found to be due towards the accused on 19.5.2010. Meaningthereby, the accused must had taken loan from the complainant on variousoccasions & from time to time and his part liability was calculated to be ` 1,50,000/-on 19.5.2010. Under these peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, the court isof the view that accused did the best what he could have done by denying hisliability for an amount of ` 1,50,000/- towards the complainant. The complainantbelongs to the businessman fraternity and accordingly it was expected of him that

https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4433036938777705386

he must be maintaining day book or ledger account of the accused in ordinarycourse of his business. The day book was the book in which the dealings of thecomplainant with all the persons should be entered on day to day basis andthereafter entries should be entered on the basis of day book in the ledger accountof concerned person. It is a matter of common practice that the complainant/lendertakes signatures of the accused/borrower either on the entries mentioned on theday book or in the concerned ledger account. Therefore, it was incumbent on thecomplainant to furnish the day book or ledger account in support of his versionbecause the liability of the accused could not be ascertained in any other manner.The complainant only tendered day book and ledger account for the year 2010-11but in absence of day book and ledger account 2004-05 onwards, neither thecomplainant could have determined the liability of the accused nor the court couldso the same. In absence of the complete books of account, the amount lent to theaccused on different occasions could not be ascertained and accordingly it couldnot be said that the amount of ` 1,50,000/- was due towards the accused on19.5.2010. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the law laid down by theHon'ble Supreme Court of India, in case titled as M.S. Narayana Menon & Mani v.State of Kerala & Anr.,MANU/SC/2881/2006 : 2006 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 504 : 2006(3) CCC 468 (SC) wherein it has held that "in case of dishonour of acheque(alleged to be issued towards outstanding dues) in business dealing, if accountbooks not produced by the complainant, the contention of accused that cheque wasissued as security can be believed and the conviction can be set aside." Last butnot the least, the complainant did not furnish the Income Tax Returns of the relevantyears i.e. 2004-05 onwards for the reasons best known to him. Had the complainantfurnished his income tax returns then it could have been very easily ascertained ifthe total amount of ` 1,94,050/- was due towards the accused or not.All these facts and circumstances clubbed together do create more than areasonable doubt over the version of the complainant and lends reasonable supportto the version of the accused that the cheque in question was a blank cheque and itwas not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The onus wasshifted upon the complainant and he was required to prove his case beyond allshadows of reasonable doubt but, as discussed above, in absence of books ofaccount maintained by him in ordinary course of business and income tax returns,he could not establish/prove his case beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt.Hence, it has been clearly established that the cheque was definitely not supportedby a consideration of ` 1,50,000/- on the date of its issuance."

17. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has examined the matter in the right perspective andrecorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. The learned counsel for complainant did not point outany material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the present matter. Sucharticulated impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interferedwith by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s. 378(4)Cr.P.C., unless and until, the same isillegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has beenpointed out by the learned counsel for complainant, so, the impugned judgment of acquittaldeserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.18. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, theinstant petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as such.

Print Page

javascript:window.print()

Whether money lender not having valid money lending license can file dishonour of cheque case?