Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (11) TMI 1263 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Seeking leave to appeal - acquittal of the accused - issuance of summon to face the trial for the commission of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - 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? HELD THAT:- The complainant was only competent to advance agricultural loan if he holds the pointed valid licence/registration certificate. Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers. The advancement of loan by the complainant to the respondent 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. 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 respondent within the meaning and in the garb of complaint u/s 138 of the NI Act. Meaning thereby, the trial Magistrate has examined the matter in the right perspective and recorded the cogent grounds in this behalf. The learned counsel for complainant did not point out any material, much less cogent, so as to warrant any interference in the present matter. Such articulated impugned judgment of acquittal, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by this Court, in exercise of limited jurisdiction u/s 378(4) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction - Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for complainant, so, the impugned judgment of acquittal deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. There is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for leave to appeal is hereby dismissed as such.
|