TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued several cheques drawn on Canera Bank, Raja Garden, New Delhi towards payment of the aforesaid loan amount. The cheques, when presented to the bank, were dishonoured for want of payment. After serving statutory notice upon the respondent/accused, the appellant/complainant filed as many as nine complaints against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The Trial Court, having held that the respondent had issued the cheques in question in discharge of a debt or a liability and finding that the cheques were dishonoured when presented to the bank and the respondent/accused did not make payment of the cheque amount, despite receipt of legal notice, convicted him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from her and he returned a total sum of Rs 3.5 lakhs, inclusive of interest. 6. Neither in the complaints nor in her depositions did the complainant gave details of the loan which she claims to have given, such as the exact amount of each loan, the date on which it was paid and the rate of interest agreed to be paid to her. There is no valid explanation for not giving all such details. 7. Admittedly, the respondent before this Court is not the only person to whom loan is alleged to have been given by the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant had filed complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against Smt. Gomti Dutta and Keshvi Dutta. She claims to have given loans to them. It would be difficult, in the facts and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t take such a risk, except for strong reasons. 9. According to complainant, even her sisters had raised loan from a society for advancing money to her. It would be difficult to believe that the sisters of the complainant would have incurred liability towards a society, to extend a loan to the complainant, not for her personal need, but for lending that amount to a person who is stranger to them. Moreover, there is no explanation for not producing the aforesaid persons in the witness box. 10. In view of the facts & circumstances as discussed earlier, it would be difficult to accept the case of the complainant/appellant that she had advanced a loan of Rs.10.40 lakh to the respondent. However, it is respondent's own case that he had take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mits that since the parties had cordial relations with each other and the respondent is residing in the same house in which the complainant is residing he did not insist on taking the cheques back from her. I, however, find myself unable to accept the submission. The appellant/complainant did not extend loan to the respondent without taking cheques from him. Therefore, the respondent while returning the said loan would certainly have insisted on taking back the cheques which he had issued to the complainant/appellant. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that though the appellant/complainant has failed to prove that she had advanced loan to the extent of Rs.10.40 lakh, the evidence which has come on record clearly shows th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitution of the suit is registered and holds a valid license or holds a certificate from the Commissioner granted under Section 11 of the Act, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted or if he is not already a registered or licensed money lender, he satisfies the court that he has applied for such registration or license but the application is pending. The aforesaid provision does not debar a money lender from instituting a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is a remedy enforceable before a criminal court, and totally independent of a civil suit. The criminal liability is incurred only in case a cheque is issued in discharge of a debt or other liability, the said cheque is disho....