Telangana High Court
B.Gopal Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 13 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.556 OF 2018
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.175 of 2015 on the file of VIII Special Magistrate, Hastinapuram, Ranga Reddy District, in acquitting the respondent/accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.
2. The case of the complainant/appellant is that respondent No.2/accused asked amount to meet his family necessities, as such on 20.06.2013 Rs.3,50,000/- was given to respondent No.2/accused. Having received the said amount, respondent No.2/accused promised to pay interest @ 24% per annum. Thereafter, towards principal and interest, Rs.5,00,000/- cheque was drawn and given to the complainant/appellant. When the said cheque was presented by the complainant/appellant for clearance, the same was dishonored and unpaid on the ground of 'Funds Insufficient'.
3. Learned Magistrate having examined the evidence produced by the complainant/appellant and respondent No.2/accused, found that the documents D1 to D3 which are certified copies of the complaints filed by the complainant/appellant against three different persons for the offence under Section 138 of N.I Act were not disputed. The three complaints were filed in three different Courts and different amount i.e., Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- were given to different persons claiming 24% interest per annum in all the cases. In the said circumstances, the learned Magistrate found that the present case was not a solitary of giving loan and the complainant/appellant was doing money lending business. From the transactions, it was apparent that the complainant/appellant was in the habit of advancing loans as matter of regular business, he falls within the definition of Section 2(7) of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act, 1349 Fasli (for short 'the Act') which defines "Money lender".
4. According to sub Section 2 of Section 9 of the Act, if it is proved that a person is a money lender, but does not hold a valid license, the suit shall be dismissed.
5. Learned Special Magistrate while acquitting the accused relied on the judgments of this Court and in paragraph No.16 of the judgment held as under;
"16. .....in "M/s. Krishnam Raju finance Vs. Abida Sultana & another" Reported in 2004 (2) Law summary page. 18 equal lent to (2004) 0 Crl.4019. Wherein it was held as follows;
"Since the appellant had no money lending business license, it cannot be said that there was as legally enforceable liability of the respondent in view of Sec. 9(2) read with Sec. 2(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Money lenders Act. 1349 Fasli. Once an Act declares that a particular transaction is illegal, it cannot be made legal for the purpose of any other Act. The sheet-anchor of Section 138 of the Act, is as to legally enforceable liability against the respondent, which is conspicuously absent in the case on hand. Therefore, there was no legally enforceable liability against the respondent,"
The Hon'ble High court of A.P in another judgment in "Ramasalamma Vs. Potturi Venkata Srinivasa Raju"
Reported in 2012 (2) ALT 218 wherein it was held as follows:
"Even otherwise, the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record as analyzed above indicate Peda Basi Reddy being in the habit of advancing loans to persons as a matter of regular business indicating a certain degree of system and continuity about the transactions without any possibility of dismissing the transactions under Exs. Al to A4, as four isolated transactions of money lending or casual transactions. Even if the two transactions under Exs B4 and B.09 did not stipulate in the promissory notes payment of any interest, and are, therefore capable of being construed to be not loans under the Act, the other evidence probabilities Peda Basi Reddy being a "Money lender" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the Act."
In the instant case, it is admitted by the complainant that he had lent amounts to different persons at 24% interest per annum and also filed cases against three of them. It is clear that he was doing money lending business and no where the complainant had stated that he had lent money only to the needy and family friends and not in the course of business.
6. Once the transactions narrated in the case and also the other circumstances admitted by the accused clearly indicate that the appellant was doing money lending business without a valid license, the findings of the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with, which are reasonable and based on record.
7. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:13.11.2024 Pss