TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (1) TMI 1282
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h gave rise to this appeal are: The complainant claimed that she is carrying on the business in lending money to needy persons. It is her case that the accused had approached her on 3.2.2006 and 8.4.2006 with a request for loan in the sum of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 19,000/- respectively for a period of two months and agreed to pay interest at the rate of Rs. 21% per annum, under two promissory notes executed before a Guarantor and accepted the cash. Further, according to the complainant, the accused had on 17.11.2006 issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards repayment of loan amount and part of interest. The cheque bearing No. 767789 was drawn upon Canara Bank, Sadar Bazar Nagpur. The cheque was presented by the complainant on 4.5.200....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5 . Learned Advocate for the appellant, in support of the appeal, submitted that the accused ought to have been convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, since the accused had admitted issuance of cheque under his signature, which was returned dishonoured and remained unpaid. It is further contended that the complainant was not bound to produce money lending license in operation. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the accused ought to have been held guilty. According to learned Advocate for the appellant, mere nonproduction of money lending license in the trial Court, was cited as the prime reason f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....que has been presented to the Bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (iii) that cheque is returned by the Bank unpaid, either because the amount of money standing to the credit of the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the Bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the Bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. (v) the drawe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000/- towards repayment of loan amount and interest. Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant to establish the fact that she held valid money lending license in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 for the relevant period of the transaction. The complainant money lender did not produce such a valid money lending license at the time when complaint was instituted nor till it is decided although required. Furthermore, no such valid money lender's license is produced even during pendency of this Appeal. Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 runs thus: 10(1) No Court shall pass decree in favour of money lender in any suit to which this Act applies including such suit pending in the Court bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the time of transaction of loan to be recovered. Thus, no fault can be found with the trial Court as it was duty bound to dismiss the complaint by the complainant a money lender who was engaged in business of money lending without a valid money lending license at the time of transaction in view of clear provisions of Section 10 of the Bombay Lenders Act, 1946 as the learned Court could not have assisted the complainant to facilitate or further the illegal claim or claim prohibited by law in the complaint. Since explanation to Section 138 of the N.I. Act clearly stipulated that the debt or liability means legally enforceable debt or other liability the claim by money lender against her borrower without production of valid and operative mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0/- made on the basis of negotiable instrument other than a promissory note. In the case in hand, the money lender had advanced loans at interest on the basis of two promissory notes hence the ruling cited can not be come to the rescue of the complainant in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the complainant could not establish legally enforceable debt or liability from the accused towards complainant. Since the complainant has failed to establish salutary or basic ingredients of offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act or observed in Kusum Ingots 's case (supra), the complaint was rightly dismissed and the finding as to acquittal was correct and logical by the trial Court. No ground is made out so as to inter....