Complaint as part of court record and limited money-lending bar under the Negotiable Instruments framework
A complaint filed before a Magistrate under Section 200 CrPC becomes part of the court record and may be looked into even if it is not formally marked as an exhibit; non-marking is not fatal, and the contents may still be used for corroboration or contradiction. The article also notes that an objection based on absence of a money-lending licence fails unless the evidence shows that the complainant was carrying on the business of money lending as a profession or for profit; a solitary lending transaction is insufficient. On that basis, the alleged statutory bar did not render the debt unenforceable.
Issues: (i) Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act forms part of the record and need be marked as an exhibit before it can be looked into or relied upon. (ii) Whether absence of a money-lending licence and the alleged character of the transaction as money-lending rendered the debt or liability unenforceable.
Issue (i): Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act forms part of the record and need be marked as an exhibit before it can be looked into or relied upon.
Analysis: A complaint filed before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is itself presented to the Court and becomes part of the court record. The complaint is not treated as a document merely produced in support of a party's case in the same manner as an ordinary exhibit. Since it is part of the record, the Court may look into it and consider its contents even if it is not formally marked. The Court also held that such complaint may be used for corroboration or contradiction, and that non-marking does not deprive the accused of the opportunity to confront its contents.
Conclusion: The complaint forms part of the record and need not be marked as an exhibit; mere non-marking is not fatal to the complainant's case.
Issue (ii): Whether absence of a money-lending licence and the alleged character of the transaction as money-lending rendered the debt or liability unenforceable.
Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the complainant was carrying on the business of money lending or that the impugned transaction was entered into in the course of such business. A solitary or stray lending transaction does not amount to carrying on money-lending as a profession or with profit motive. The alleged pronote and the admission about absence of licence were insufficient to attract the statutory bar relied upon by the accused. On the record, the transaction was not shown to fall within the mischief of the Money Lenders Act.
Conclusion: The money-lending objection failed and did not affect the enforceability of the liability.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the accused, the revision challenge failed, and the conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A complaint instituted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is part of the court record and can be considered without formal exhibition, and an alleged money-lending bar applies only when the complainant is shown to be carrying on the business of money lending as a profession or with profit motive.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
