TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 901X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent a sum of ₹ 72,000/- to the accused in the month of March, 2013, amount whereof was to be repaid within six months. The aforesaid amounts was advanced in presence of Smt. Pushpa Devi w/o Shri Chet Ram, r/o Sant Niwas, Ambedkar Colony, Dhalli, District Shimla. The accused gave an undertaking for a sum of ₹ 1 lac out of the total amount. The complainant also submits that he also arranged a sum of ₹ 3 lacs for accused on her request, made, through Smt. Pushpa Devi. He further submits that when he demanded the aforesaid amount, the accused issued a cheque No.072825 of 15.09.2013, in his favour, drawn at Allahabad Bank, Shimla, amount to ₹ 1,72,500/-. The said cheque was returned unpaid on 9.10.2013 with remarks funds insufficient . The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused through registered post and it was replied by the accused, however, she failed to defray the cheque amount. Hence the complaint. 3. A notice of accusation, was, put to the accused by the learned trial Court, for hers, committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In proof of his case, the complainant examined 2 witnesses. On conclusio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s), bearing consonance therewith. The testification rendered by the complainant, is, meted corroboration by CW-2 Puspa Devi. The defence as ventilated by the accused/respondent, of hers, in the presence of, one, Krishan Kumar, who testified, as DW- 1, hence liquidating vis-a-vis the complainant a sum of Rs. One lacs-, from amongst, a sum of ₹ 1,72,000/-, borne in Ex.CW1/A, obviously depended upon the testification, of Krishan Kumar. However, the latter omitted, to, purvey his appropriate corroboration thereto. The effect of the aforesaid defence reared, by the accused/respondent, being hence falsified, (i) also carries the further effect, of, the further defence, reared by the accused/respondent, of the amounts scribed, in words and figures, in, the dishonoured negotiable instrument, borne in Ex.CW1/A, being not authored, by her rather being authored by the complainant, (ii) arising, from qua at the time contemporaneous to hers, purportedly liquidating the sum of Rs.one lac, his not returning to her, three blanks cheques, being also negatived, (iii) conspicuously with the respondent/ accused, not lending efficacious proof in respect thereof, comprised in hers either making, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... institution of the suit or presentation of the application for execution, or at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the application for execution,- (a) is registered; and (i) holds a valid licence, in such, form and in such manner as may be prescribed; or (ii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under section 10, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application for execution is presented; or (iii) if he is not already a registered and licensed money-lender, satisfies the court that he has applied to the Collector to be registered and licensed and that such application is pending; Provided that in such a case, the suit or application shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the money-lender for registration and grant of licence pending before the Collector is finally disposed of. (i)whereunder an unregistered money lender, is, barred, to enforce his claim, against, his borrower by instituting a civil suit or upon rendition of an affirmative decree, he is forbidden, to realize the decretal amount, through his casting an execution petition, before, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arging of interest thereon, by the money lender, (ix) whereas with no evidence surging forth hereat, in display of the amount, carried in the dishonoured negotiable instrument, also carrying therein, the apt interest levied or charged thereon. Contrarily, with existence, of, evidence qua the initial borrowings, made by the respondent/accused, from, the complainant, rather bearing consonance, with, the amount carried, in the dishonoured negotiable instrument, (x) whereupon, it is apt, to, conclude, of no, interest being charged or levied by the complainant, from, the respondent/accused, in the latter making, hence, borrowings from him. Corollary thereof, is, it being unbefitting to conclude, of, the complainant, charging or levying, any interest, on the money lent by him to the apposite borrowers AND hence his being not construable to be a money lender. 11. Be that as it may, even if assumingly, the complainant, is construable to be an unregistered or an unlicensed professional money lender, and, even if assumingly, the bar constituted under Section 3 of the H.P. Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, is attracted vis-a-vis the purported business of money lending, carried by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
