TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m him for agricultural purpose with an understanding that he would repay the amount of loan along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. At the same time, he had promised to sell his agricultural produce 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 along with interest. Instead of paying the loan amount, he had issued impugned cheque dated 16.5.2011 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn at Oriental Bank of Commerce, Nissing in his (complainant's) favour in discharge of part of his liability. The cheque was presented for encashment, but it was returned unpaid 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, he was called upon to make the payment of the amount of impugned cheque within a stipulated period, but in vain. Then, the complainant filed a criminal complaint against the respondent in the manner depicted here-in-above. 3. Having completed the codal/statutory procedure of the trial and after closing the evidence by the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court. 3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused." 8. 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 in this case is as to whether the trial Court has committed such jurisdictional error to acquit the respondent and there are substantial and compelling reasons to set aside the judgment of acquittal or not in this respect ? 9. Having regard to the contentions of learned counsel for petitioner, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative, as the complainant has miserably failed in this r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not otherwise, which is entirely missing in the instant case. Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with liability, in view of ratio of law laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank Ltd. AIR 1967 Surpeme Court 1058 and Rajasthan High Court in case Pit Ram Singh v. Vimla Devi 1992 AIR (Raj) 149. 13. Moreover, it is a matter of very common knowledge that commission agents used to obtain such blank/undated cheques from the Farmers as a security in good faith, not in lieu of any legal liability, to which, the court can take judicial notice of it. Therefore, once it is ruled that such Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act, not alone sufficient to charge any person with liability and such cheques were issued as a security of the loan amount, then, the complainant was debarred from filing the complaint u/s 138 of the NI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent without any valid licence is not only illegal, but, at the same time, he can be prosecuted u/s 4 of the Money- lender's Act as well. Similarly, this Court in case Manjit Kaur v. Vanita 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 574 and Delhi High Court in case Prajan Kumar Jain v. Ravi Malhotra 2010(3) CivCC 410, have categorically held that in case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, then, it cannot be termed to have been issued, in lieu of legal enforceable liability/debt within the meaning of section 138 of the NI Act. 17. Therefore, on the same analogy, once it is proved and the entire facts that the alleged Bahi entries are not negotiable instruments, which can be enforced, not alone sufficient to charge any person with liability, sequelly, the complainant was legally debarred to recover the alleged loan, as envisaged under the indicated provisions of the Money lender's Act and in view of such legal disabilities attached to the complaint, as discussed here-in-above, are put together, then, in that eventuality, to my mind, the conclusion is irresistible and inescapable that he (complainant) cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eable under the Negotiable Instruments Act but to settle the controversy for once and all,it was essential to decide whether the accused was otherwise under any sort of debt or not. It has been the case of the complainant that the accused used to take loan from him from time to time. The cheque amount was found to be due against him. On the other hand, accused has taken a plea that the cheque in question was a blank cheque, not supported by any consideration and misused by the complainant to file a false complaint against him. In the present case, the claim of the complainant was not based upon a single transaction and the liability of Rs.1,50,000/- was found to be due towards the accused on 19.5.2010. Meaning thereby, the accused must had taken loan from the complainant on various occasions & from time to time and his part liability was calculated to be Rs.1,50,000/- on 19.5.2010. Under these peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, the court is of the view that accused did the best what he could have done by denying his liability for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the complainant. The complainant belongs to the businessman fraternity and accordingly it was expected o....