TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (11) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeared on that day. In those circumstances, it is posted to day i.e., on 26-11-1996. Today also nobody appeared for the parties. The learned Public Prosecutor who is present before this Court submits that he is only a formal party since it is a private complainant case filed by the appellant. 2. Again I went through the entire record. From the record it is clear that the present appellant by name Messers Baba Finance Corporation filed a complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against the respondent Mohammad Nayeem alleging that the respondent has committed offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On behalf of the complainant he examined PW1 V. S. Ravi Kumar, said to be its Managing Partner as PW1 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent/accused vide order dated 3-9-1994. It is in those circumstances, the complainant preferred this appeal. 4. The proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are quasi-civil and quasi-criminal in nature as held by this Court in B. Mohan Krishna and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others (1) 1995 (1) ALT (Crl) 332 (DB) (AP). From the evidence of PW1 it is clear that the firm in question is engaged in operating and lending loans and under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money-lenders Act, 1349 Fasli, the money lenders shall necessarily get their names registered and on such registration a money lenders licence would be issued under sub-section (2) of Section 3 in the prescribed fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2) of Section 6. (2) If it is proved that the plaintiff is a money-lender as defined in sub-section (7) of Section 2, but does not hold a licence granted under Section 3, the Court shall dismiss his suit. From clause (2) of Section 9 extracted above, if it is proved that the plaintiff is a money-lender as defined under the Act and if he does not possess licence in question, the Court shall dismiss his suit. In other words, such a money lender cannot claim debt or liability from others, from his debtors without valid money lending licence. Explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, further, provides that the dishonoured cheque shall relate to a debt or liability enforceable in order to constitute an offence. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uing is or has been shown in the Register of Firms as a partner in the firm. (2) No suits to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply also to a claim of set-off or other proceeding to enforce a right rising from a contract, but shall not affect. (a) The enforcement of any right to sue for the dissolution of a firm or for accounts of a dissolved firm, or any right or power to realise the property of a dissolved firm; or (b) the powers of an offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procedure to institute a suit before an appropriate Court and obtain relief regarding the suit in question such a debt is not legally enforceable. In the instant case, therefore, I have to see whether the debt in question is legally enforceable or not. PW1, who is said to be the Manager of the complainant firm took adjournment to produce the registration certificate under the Indian Partnership Act, in support of his assertion that the partnership is registered. On the other hand, the case of the accused was that partnership was not registered. From the judgment of the Court below, it is clear, that number of adjournments were taken on behalf of the complainant to produce the alleged certificate issued under Indian Partnership Act. If such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the said pro-note was by two persons, accused and K. M. Khan and he does not remember to whom he advanced Rs. 12,000/-, whether to the accused or K. M. Khan and he added that the pro-note indicated that the said amount was payable by K. M. Khan and accused. In his deposition, he further stated that he could not say what was the total amount paid by the accused and accused had paid approximately Rs. 3,000/- to them. And even regarding that Rs. 3,000/- he has not produced any account books in the Court. Moreover except the suit pro-note, there is no other pro-note to show that Rs. 12,000/- was paid to the accused. PW1 further, admitted that he and Mr. Purna Chander another partner settled the accounts. In the cross-examination, he further d....