Delhi High Court
Hansraj Bansal vs State &Anr. on 12 September, 2023
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: July 25, 2023
Decided on: September 12, 2023
+ CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10831/2019
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
23
+ CRL.REV.P. 229/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10739/2019
HANSRAJ BANSAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE &ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
24
+ CRL.REV.P. 230/2017
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 1
12:02:02
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and
Mr. Rohit Rexwal,
Advocates for R-2
25
+ CRL.REV.P. 233/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10742/2019
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
26
+ CRL.REV.P. 234/2017
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and
Mr. Rohit Rexwal,
Advocates for R-2
27
+ CRL.REV.P. 235/2017
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 2
12:02:02
Mr.VarunTyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and
Mr. RohitRexwal, Advocates
for R-2
28
+ CRL.REV.P. 236/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10741/2019
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
29
+ CRL.REV.P. 237/2017
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh and
Mr. Rohit Rexwal,
Advocates for R-2
30
+ CRL.REV.P. 238/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10740/2019
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 3
12:02:02
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
31
+ CRL.REV.P. 239/2017 &CRL.M.A. 10743/2019
HANSRAJ BANSAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bharat Gupta and
Mr.Varun Tyagi, Advocates.
V
STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for
State/R-1
Mr. Prince Arora, Advocate
for R-2
*/
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner as complainant filed criminal complaints under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act") against the respondents no. 2 being accused,
bearing no 269/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no
228/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad on basis of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 4
12:02:02
cheque bearing no.188868 dated 05.04.2009 amounting to
Rs.11,71,600/- drawn on ICICI Bankwhich returned unpaid due to
Payment Stopped by Drawer; 346/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev.
Petition bearing no 229/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul
Ahad on basis of cheque bearing no 176236 dated 15.03.2009
amounting to Rs.11,10,000/- drawn on ICICI Bank which returned
unpaid due to Payment Stopped by Drawer; 265/13 (subject matter of
Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 230/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Farooq @ Bablu on basis of cheque bearing no.911692 dated
24.06.2012 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National
Bank which returned unpaid due to Signature of the Drawer was not
according to Mandate; 298/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition
bearing no 233/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed
on basis of cheque bearing no 078864 dated 05.04.2009 amounting to
Rs.3,32,500/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank which returned
unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds; 725/13 (subject matter of Crl.
Rev. Petition bearing no 234/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Arshad Ahmedon basis ofcheque bearing no 791221 dated
10.06.2011amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on South Indian Bank
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 5
12:02:02
Ltd. which returned unpaid due to Want of sufficiency of Funds;
948/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 235/2017)
titled as Hansraj Bansal V Farooq @ Babluon basis ofcheque
bearing no.911693 dated 28.06.2013 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-
drawn on Punjab National Bank which returned unpaid due to
Signature of the Drawer Differs; 227/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev.
Petition bearing no 236/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz
Ahmed on basis of cheque bearing no.078860 dated 21.02.2009
amounting to Rs.9,60,000/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank
which returned unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds;478/13 (subject
matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 237/2017) titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Shis Pal Tomar on basis of cheque bearing no.636617
dated 17.03.2009 amounting to Rs.2,50,000/- drawn on HDFC which
returned unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds; 464/13 (subject
matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 238/2017) titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Abdul Ahad on basis of cheque bearing no 188868 dated
05.04.2009 amounting to Rs.11,71,600/- drawn on ICICI Bank which
returned unpaid due to Payment Stopped by Drawer and 401/13
(subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 239/2017) titled as
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 6
12:02:02
Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed on basis of cheque bearing
no.078861 dated 20.03.2009 amounting to Rs.14,90,000/- drawn on
Standard Chartered Bank which returned unpaid due to Insufficient
Fund. The petitioner also filed other complaints under section 138 of
the Act which are bearing no.387/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Sabir Ali; 100/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Komal Parshad;
354/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sher Pal Nagar; 585/13 titled
asHansraj Bansal V Vinod Kumar; 456/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Salim @ Guddu and bearing no.022/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Manju Gupta. The respondents no 2 and other accused
did not pay the cheque amounts despite legal notice. Hence the
petitioner filed present complaints. The petitioner led pre-summoning
evidence in all complaints and thereafter cognizance was taken
against the respondents in all complaints for offence punishable
under section 138 of the Act. Notice under section 251 Cr. P.C. was
stated to be given to the respondents no 2 to which they pleaded not
guilty and filed applications under section 145(2) of the Act which
were stated to be replied by the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 7
12:02:02
2. The petitioner in complaint bearing no 346/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Abdul Ahad vide proceedings dated 04.09.2013 conducted
by the court of Sh. Sunil Gupta, MM, North East, Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi was examined under section 165 of Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The petitioner in examination under section 165 of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 stated that he has filed around 15-20 complaints
under section 138 of the Act against 12 persons. He had given money
to the respondents Sarfaraz and Ahad for their chit funds activities
and money was given to rest of the respondents due to friendly
relations. Thereafter a show cause notice was also ordered to be
issued to the petitioner to explain as to whether he is engaged in
business of money lending and if he is so engaged, whether he has
any statutory licence for doing money lending business. All the
complaints pertaining to the petitioner as complainant were ordered
to be placed on same day. The petitioner replied to the show cause
notice wherein the petitioner stated that he is not engaged in business
of money lending.
3. The court of Sh. Sunil Gupta, MM, North East, Karkardooma
Courts , Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") vide order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 8
12:02:02
dated 15.07.20I5 dismissed complaints bearing no 269/13 titled as
Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad , 464/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Abdul Ahad, 346/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdud Ahad,
478/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Shish Pal Tomar, 948/13 titled
as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @ Babloo,387/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Sabir Ali,265/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @
Babloo,100/13titled as Hansraj Bansal V Komal Parsad and
725/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Arshad Ahmad.
3.1 The petitioner did not pursue further remedy to impugn order
dated 15.07.2015 in respect of complaint bearing no 387/13 titled as
Hansraj Bansal V Sabir Ali and 100/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Komal Parsad.
3.2 The trial court vide order dated 20.08.20I5 dismissed three
complaints bearing no 298/13; 227/13 and 401/13 all titled as
Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed.
3.3 The trial court did not dismiss complaint bearing no.354/13 titled
as Hansraj Bansal V Sher Pal Nagar; 585/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Vinod Kumar; 456/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Salim
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 9
12:02:02
@ Guddu and bearing no.022/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Manju
Gupta.
3.4 The trial court vide orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015
dismissed complaints as mentioned hereinabove primarily on ground
that the petitioner has violated the provisions of the Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 as he was engaged in
business of money lending without licence.
3.4.1 The trial court in order dated 15.07.2015 in respect of three
complaints bearing no. 269/13, 464/13 and 346/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansai V Abdul Ahad observed that the petitioner in these
complaints alleged that the respondent no.2 is engaged in the
business of committee (chit funding) and has sought financial
assistance from the petitioner against several pronotes and issued
cheques on completion of the date of each pronote in discharge of the
liability. It was further observed that amount was advanced by the
petitioner on the basis of pronote and subsequently the cheques were
issued by the respondent no 2 and issuance of the cheques doesn't
mean that the amount in question was advanced by the petitioner on
basis of a negotiable instrument rather was advanced on the basis of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 10
12:02:02
promissory notes. Accordingly transaction is covered by the
definition of loan as provided in the Punjab Registration of Money
Lenders Act,1938.
3.4.2 The trial court in order dated 15.07.2015 in respect of three
complaints bearing no.478/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Shish Pal
Tomar; 948/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @ Babloo and
387/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sabir Ali observed that the
petitioner in these complaints alleged that amounts were advanced as
financial assistance to the respondents no.2 for a definite period and
after completion of the period, the respondents no.2 stated to have
issued the cheques in discharge of liabilities. So it cannot be said that
the amounts were advanced by the petitioner on the basis of a
negotiable instrument but on oral assurance by the respondents no.2
to repay within the agreed time period. Accordingly amount
advanced is covered within the term 'loan'.
3.4.3 The trial court in order dated 15.07.2015 in respect of three
complaints bearing no.265/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @
Babloo,100/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Komal Prasad and
725/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Arshad Ahmad observed that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 11
12:02:02
petitioner alleged that the amount was given to the respondents no.2
against a promissory note and after completion of the time period and
on demand of the petitioner complainant, the respondents no 2 issued
cheques in discharge of their liability. Accordingly, transactions are
covered by the definition of loan.
3.4.4 The trial court in order dated 20.08.2015 in respect of two
complaints bearing no.227/13 and 401/13 both titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmedobserved that the petitioner alleged that
the respondent no 2 is engaged in the business of committee (chit
fund) and has sought financial assistance from the petitioner against
pronotes and on completion of the date of each pronote, cheques
were issued in discharge of the liability. Accordingly, transactions are
covered by the definition of loan. The trial court in respect of
complaint bearing no.298/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz
Ahmed observed that the petitioner has allegedthat the respondent no
2 used to borrow money against pronotes followed by issuance of
post-dated cheques upon completion of the period of pronotes.
Accordingly, transaction is covered by the definition of loan.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 12
12:02:02
3.5 The trial court in orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015
referred section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,
1938 and definitions of loan as per section 2(8) and money lender as
per section 2(9) which reads as under:-
3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless
money-lender is registered and licensed. - Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other enactment for the time
being in force, a suit by a money lender for the recovery of
a loan, or an application by a money-lender for the
execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall, after the
commencement of this Act, be dismissed, unless the money-
lender -
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation
of the application for execution; or
(b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the
application for execution -
(i) is registered; and
(ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner
as may be prescribed; or
(iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner
granted under section 11, specifying the loan in
respect of which the suit instituted, or the decree in
respect of which the application for execution is
presented; or
(iv) 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 13
12:02:02
2(8) "Loan" means an advance whether secured or
unsecured of money or in kind at interest and shall include
any transaction which the court finds to be in substance a
loan, but it shall not include -
(i) an advance in kind made by a landlord to his
tenant for the purposes of husbandry;
Provided the market value of the return does not
exceed the market value of the advance as
estimated at the time of advance.
(ii) a deposit of money or other property in a
Government Post Office Bank, or any other Bank,
or with a company, or with a co-operative society
or with any employer as security from his
employees;
(iii) a loan to, or by, or a deposit with any society or
association registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, or under any other
enactment;
(iv) a loan advanced by or to the Central or any
[State] Government or by or to any local body
under the authority of the Central or any [State]
Government;
(v) a loan advanced by a bank, a co-operative
Society or a company whose accounts are subject
to audit by a certificated auditor under the Indian
Companies Act, 1913;
(vi) a loan advanced by a trader to a trader, in the
regular course of business, in accordance with
trade usage;
(vii) an advance made on the basis of a negotiable
instrument as defined in the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory
note.
2(9) "Money-lender" means a person, or a firm carrying
on the business of advancing loans as defined in this Act,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 14
12:02:02
and shall include the legal representatives and the
successors-in-interest whether by inheritance, assignment
or otherwise, of such person or firm; provided that nothing
in this definition shall apply to -
(a) a person who is the legal representative or is by
inheritance the successor-in-interest of the estate of a
deceased money-lender together with all his rights and
liabilities; provided that such person only -
(i) winds up the estate of such money-lender;
(ii) realises outstanding loans;
(iii) does not renew any existing loan, nor advance
any fresh loan;
(b) a bona fide assignment by a money-lender of a single
loan to any one other than the wife or husband of such
assignor, as the case may be, or any person, who is
descended from a common grand-father of the
assignor.
3.6 The trial court in orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015
observed that amount advanced by the petitioner falls within the
definition of 'loan' as per Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,
1938 and in the absence of any explanation by the petitioner, it can
be safely said that the petitioner is a money lender within the
meaning of Section 2(9) of the Punjab Registrations of Money
Lenders Act, 1938. The trial court in support of orders dated
15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 has referred two decisions delivered by
the Bombay High Court in Anil V Purshottam, Criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 15
12:02:02
Application No. 630 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal (stamp) No. 139 of
2009 decided on dated 21.11.2009 and Tinki Nagpur V Unknown,
Criminal Appeal No. 467/2009 decided on 12.01.2010. The Bombay
High Court in Anil V Purshottam observed as under:-
Here, I may refer to the provisions of the Bombay Money-
Lenders Act, 1946. Section 5 of the said Act lays down that
no money lender shall carry on business of money lending
except in the area for which he has been granted a licence
and except in accordance with the terms and conditions of
such licence. It is not the case of present applicant-
complainant that he has any money lending licence. Section
10 of the Act lays down that no court shall pass a decree in
favour of a money-lender in any suit to which said Act
applies unless the court is satisfied that at the time when the
loan or any part thereof, to which the suit relates was
advanced, the money-lender held a valid licence, and if the
court is satisfied that the money-lender did not hold a valid
licence, it shall dismiss the suit. In other words, carrying on
money lending business without licence debars a person
from doing money lending and recovering the amount
through court. As per explanation to Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act "debt or other liability" means
a legally enforceable debt or other liability. So, a loan
advanced by a money lender who is doing business of
money lending without licence is not a debt or other
liability and provisions of Section 138 of the Act will not
apply to such transaction. In the light of above, it cannot be
said that in the present case, that the cheque issued by the
Respondent in favour of the applicant was for the liability
enforceable in law.
The Bombay High Court in Tinki Nagpur V Unknown
observed as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 16
12:02:02
The words "No court" and "in any suit" used in the Section
are wider in scope to embrace any suit or proceeding
initiated by a money lender who is required to hold and
prove valid license for money lending for the relevant
period of the loan transaction or transactions. The trial
Court was, therefore, entitled to insist upon the
complainant for production of valid license for money
lending and also to infer in view of Section 114 (g) of
the Evidence Act that the document withheld was
unfavourable to the complainant who withheld it. Thus, the
legal position cannot be disputed that Courts are bound to
dismiss the suit by money lender for recovery of loans when
such money lender was found carrying on business of
money lending on the date or dates of the transaction
without having valid money lending license.
3.6.1 The trial court ultimately opined that the petitioner has violated
the provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,
1938 as he is engaged in the business of money-lending without
requisite license and accordingly dismissed the complaints as
mentioned hereinabove.
4.The petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition bearing no
825/2015 titled as Hansraj Bansal V State & othersto impugn
orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 which was allowed to be
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file separate cases within one
month vide order dated 07.03.2017 passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 17
12:02:02
5. The petitioner challenged orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015
on grounds that orders dated 15.7.2015 and 20.08.2015 are bad in
eyes of law and suffer from legal infirmity. The trial court has erred
in jurisdiction to pass the extra-judicial dismissal orders without
explaining the statute properly. A money lender requires to be
permanently engaged in the said business with repetition and
continuity. The trial court has referred to the judgments which
exclusively deal with the civil suits for recovery by money lenders
and none of the said judgements exclusively applicable to the
criminal complaints under the provisions of the Act. The Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act,1938 is applicable to suits only
and not to complaints under the Act. The trial court has erred in
passing the order of dismissal whereas the trial court itself has
summoned the respondents after being satisfied about the legality of
the complaints. The orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 caused
miscarriage ofjustice and if the trial court was of the view that the
complaintsare hit under any provisions of the law then the trial court
should have dismissed the complaints and acquitted the respondents
no.2 after conclusion of trial.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 18
12:02:02
6. The counsel for the petitioner advanced oral arguments and also
submitted written arguments.
6.1 The counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court should
not have dismissed the complaints at a pre-trial stage without
evidence having been led by the petitioner and cited decision of the
Supreme Court In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section
138 of N.I. Act, 1881, AIR2021SC1957 wherein it was held that
section 258 Cr.P.C. is not applicable to a summons case instituted on
a complaint and as such section 258 Cr. P.C. cannot be applied in
respect of the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. The
Trial Court is not conferred with inherent power either to review or
recall the order of issuance of process. The counsel for the petitioner
also referred Court on its Own Motion V State, Neutral Citation
No: 2022/DHC/001932 wherein it was held that the court of a
Magistrate does not have the power to discharge the accused upon his
appearance in court in a summons trial case based upon a complaint
in general, and particularly in a case under section 138 of the Act,
once cognizance has already been taken and process issued under
Section 204 Cr.P.C. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 19
12:02:02
trial court should not have abruptly dismissed the complaints filed by
the petitioner after taking cognizance and issuing process to the
respondents no 2 till the completion of trial.
6.2 The counsel for the petitioner raised issue of applicability of
provisions of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 to
the complaints filed under the Act and whether this issue can be
decided without evidence being led to show that the petitioner was a
money lender. He cited Samarendra Nath Das V Supriyo Maitra,
2005 SCC OnLine Cal 628 and Jupiter Brokerage Services Ltd. V
Ektara Exports Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10514decided by
the Calcutta High Court, Dhanjit Singh Nanda V State & another,
2009 SCC OnLine Del 261 decided by this court, Ravinder Paul V
Ashwani Kumar, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 4606 decided by Punjab
& Haryana High Court Satyanarayana V M/s Sandeep
Enterprises, 2004 SCC 8 OnLine Kar 427 decided by Karnataka
High Court. The counsel argued that the provisions of the Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 are not a bar for a
complaint case filed under the Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 20
12:02:02
6.3The counsel for the petitioners also argued that present revision
petitions are maintainable in place of appeal and present revision
petitions can be filed directly before this court.
7. The counsel for the respondents advanced oral arguments and also
submitted written arguments.
7.1 The counsel argued that the present revision petitions are not
maintainable as orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 were in the
natureof dismissal of complaint as well as acquittal of the
respondents no 2 and the petitioner was required to file appeal.The
present revisions are also not maintainable without invoking
jurisdiction of the Sessions Court. The complaints were dismissed
during the trial and queries were put to the petitioner in examination
under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as he had filed
multiple complaints against several persons on the basis of pronote
and the petitioner also admitted that he had no licence of money
lending though he had filed multiple complaints against the various
persons i.e. the respondents. He further argued that if money lending
is prohibited without license then it cannot be legally enforceable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 21
12:02:02
under the Act. The counsel for the respondents argued that the
present petitions are liable to be dismissed.
8. It is reflecting that the petitioner being complainant filed various
complaints under section 138 of the Act against the respondents no.2
as detailed herein above primarily on allegations that he had given
money to the respondents no 2. The petitioner is not a licence holder
of money lending. The petitioner led pre-summoning evidence and
thereafter cognizance for offence punishable under section 138 of the
Act was taken against the respondents no.2 being accused. The
respondents were ordered to be summoned for offence under section
138 of the Act. In all complaints as detailed herein above, notice
under section 251 Cr.P.C. was given to the respondents no.2 to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The trial court before
recording evidence post notice under section 251 Cr.P.C., examined
the petitioner under section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872in
complaint bearing no 346/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul
Ahad vide proceedings dated 04.09.2013 wherein the petitioner
stated that he has filed around 15-20 complaints under section 138 of
the Act against 12 persons. A show cause notice was also issued to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 22
12:02:02
the petitioner to explain as to whether he is engaged in business of
money lending and is having any statutory licence for doing money
lending business. The petitioner in response to show cause notice
replied that he is not engaging in business of money lending. The trial
court vide order dated 15.07.2015 dismissed nine complaints and
vide order dated 20.08.2015 dismissed three complaints as detailed
herein above primarily on ground that the petitioner is not having
valid money lending licence as per the Punjab Registration of Money
Lenders Act, 1938.
9. The Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 was enacted
to register money-lenders and to regulate their business. Section 3
bars suits and applications by money-lenders unless money lender is
registered and licensed. It provides that a suit by a money lender for
the recovery of a loan or an application by a money lender for the
execution of a decree relating to a loan shall be dismissed unless the
money-lender is registered and holds a valid licence or a certificate
under section 11. Section 4 deals with registration of money lenders.
Section 2(8) describe loan which means an advance whether secured
or unsecured of money or in kind at interest and includes any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 23
12:02:02
transaction which is in substance a loan. However loan does not
include in its ambit an advance made on the basis of a negotiable
instrument as defined in the Act other than a promissory note.
Section 2(9) defines money lender which means a person or a firm
carrying on the business of advancing loans. The Supreme Court in
Gajanan & others V Seth Brindaban, 1971 SCR (1) 657 observed
that the registration of a money lender does not afford to debtors any
additional protection not available under the other provisions of the
Act. An unregistered money lender can be punished only for the
collective act of carrying on the business of money lending and not
for every loan advanced by him without a registration certificate.The
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balwant Singh V Mukhtiar
Singh, RSA-2844-2015 (O&M) decided on 2.12.2022 held that the
plaintiff was regularly and consistently lending money on interest and
was not merely a casual or occasional lender. The plaintiff though
running the business of money lending neither got registered under
Section 4 of the 1938 Act nor even possesses any license under the
said Act. Accordingly, the suit for recovery filed on basis of pronote
and a receipt itself was liable to be dismissed being not maintainable.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 24
12:02:02
10. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was enacted to define and
amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and
Cheques. The Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable
Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 has inserted new Chapter
XVII comprising sections 138 to 142 with effect from 01.04.1989 in
the Act. Section 138 of the Act provides the penalties in case of
dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds etc. in the account
of the drawer of the cheque. However sections 138 to 142 of the Act
were found deficient in dealing with dishonour of cheques. The
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act, 2002 amended sections 138, 141 and 142 and inserted new
sections 143 to 147 in the Act aimed at speedy disposal of cases
relating to dishonour of cheque through their summary trial as well as
making them compoundable. The Supreme Court in Electronics
Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd.,
Secunderabad V Indian Technologists & Engineers (Electronics)
(P) Ltd. and another, (1996) 2 SCC 739 observed that the object of
bringing section 138 on statute appears to inculcate the faith in the
efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 25
12:02:02
on negotiable instruments and section 138 intended to prevent
dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instrument to draw
a cheque without sufficient funds in his account maintained by him in
a book and induce the payee or holder in due course to act upon it.
The Supreme Court again in Goa Plast (P) Ltd. V Chico Ursula
D'Souza, (2004) 2 SCC 235 while dealing with the objects and
ingredients of Sections 138 and 139 of the Act observed as under:-
The object and the ingredients under the provisions, in
particular, Sections 138 and 139 of the Act cannot be
ignored. Proper and smooth functioning of all business
transactions, particularly, of cheques as instruments,
primarily depends upon the integrity and honesty of the
parties. In our country, in a large number of commercial
transactions, it was noted that the cheques were issued even
merely as a device not only to stall but even to defraud the
creditors. The sanctity and credibility of issuance of
cheques in commercial transactions was eroded to a large
extent. Undoubtedly, dishonour of a cheque by the bank
causes incalculable loss, injury and inconvenience to the
payee and the entire credibility of the business transactions
within and outside the country suffers a serious setback.
Parliament, in order to restore the credibility of cheques as
a trustworthy substitute for cash payment enacted the
aforesaid provisions. The remedy available in a civil court
is a long-drawn matter and an unscrupulous drawer
normally takes various pleas to defeat the genuine claim of
the payee.
10.1 The Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association and others V
Union of India (UOI) and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 18 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 26
12:02:02
2013 decided on 21.04.2014 also observed that sections 138 to 142 of
the Act were found to be deficient in dealing with the dishonoured
cheques. The legislature inserted new Sections 143 to 147 by the
Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act, 2002 and earlier to this the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
was amended by the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and
Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 whereby a
new Chapter XVII was incorporated for penalties in case of
dishonour of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the account of
the drawer of the cheque to encourage the culture of use of cheques
and enhancing the credibility of the instrument.
10.2 Section 138 of the Act reads as under:-
138 Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in
the account. --Where any cheque drawn by a person on an
account maintained by him with a banker for payment of
any amount of money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt
or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of
that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account
by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be
deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without
prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to
two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 27
12:02:02
amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing
contained in this section shall apply unless--
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as
the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the
drawer of the cheque, 20 [within thirty days] of the receipt
of information by him from the bank regarding the return
of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of
the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may
be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen
days of the receipt of the said notice.
Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, "debt or
other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other
liability.
10.2.1The Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. V
Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & others, (2000) 2 SCC 745 laid
down the following ingredients for taking cognizance under section
138 of the Act:-
(i) A person must have drawn a cheque on an account
maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain
amount of money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge of any debt or other liability
(ii) That cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn of
within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 28
12:02:02
(iii) That cheque is returned by the bank unpaid, either
because of the amount of money standing to the credit of
the account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it
exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account
by an agreement made with the bank
(iv) The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque
makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of
money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the
cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him
from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid
(v) The drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the
said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due
course within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice
(vi) The complaint is to be filed within one month from the
date of expiry of the 15 days from the receipt of the notice.
11. Issues which need judicial consideration in context of present
petitions is that whether a person can be debarred from filing and
prosecuting complaint under section 138 of the Act if he is doing
business of money lending without holding a valid licence and
whether there is apparent conflict between section 3 of Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 and section 138 of the Act.
11.1 Every statute is enacted for specific purpose and intent and
should be read as a whole. The legislature enacts statutes and
legislation and takes appropriate precautions at time of drafting and
enacting different legal provisions but sometimes conflicts appears in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 29
12:02:02
interpretation of different statutory provisions. In this eventuality
Doctrine of Harmonious Construction needs to be adopted. The legal
provisions contained in one particular statute cannot be read to defeat
legal provisions contained in another statute and both legal provisions
contained in different statute should be given maximum effect in
their operation and applicability. The Punjab Registration of Money
Lenders Act, 1938 and Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881 which was incorporated by the Banking, Public Financial
Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act,
1988 for providing penalties in case of dishonour of cheques with an
objective to encourage the culture of use of cheques and enhancing
the credibility of the instrument. Both statutory provisions were
enacted with different objectives and intent and are operational in
independent and separate legal spheres. There is no apparent conflict
between section 3 of the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act,
1938 which apparently bars civil remedy for a money lender who is
not having valid licence or certificate for doing business of money
lending and Chapter XVII of the Act which provides criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 30
12:02:02
remedies and penalties in case of dishonor of a cheque due to reasons
as mentioned in section 138 of the Act.
12. The legal issue that if a complainant who is not having valid
licence or certificate for money lending can institute and prosecute
complaint under section 138 of the Actcame for consideration before
different High Courts besides other related issues.
12.1 The Delhi Court in Dhanjit Singh Nanda V State & Another,
Crl.M.C.209/2009 decided on 09.02.2009 rejected the argument that
the complainant is debarred from recovering loan amount as he is not
a registered money lender. It was observed as under:-
The next argument addressed by the petitioner that the
respondent was debarred from recovering the loan amount
being not a registered money lender does not lie in the
mouth of the petitioner for two reasons: The petitioner took
the loan from the respondent voluntarily and even executed
an agreement in this regard whereby he agreed to repay the
same after ninety days with interest. At the same time he
also issued the cheque in question for the repayment of the
loan but became dishonest when the cheque was presented
for encashment. The 2 nd reason to reject the argument of
the petitioner is that the proceedings under Section 138 of
NI Act are not recovery proceeding but are proceedings to
punish a person who after issuing a cheque fails to honour
the same and also commits a default in paying the said
amount on receipt of the notice.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 31
12:02:02
This Court in Virender Singh V Deepak Bhatia, Crl.L.P.
491/2011 decided on 08.04.2011 which is also relied on by the
counsel for the petitioner observed that the instant cases relate to an
advance made by the petitioner to the respondents on the basis of the
cheques which admittedly are negotiable instrument and as such bar
of section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted to a loan given on the
basis of a negotiable instrument like a cheque. A Coordinate Bench
of this court in Kajal V Vikas Marwah, Crl.A. 870/2013 decided on
27.03.2014 considered issue whether if the complainant is not holder
of money lending licence can he be debarred from filing complaint
under section 138 of the Act. It was observed as under:-
In my view, even if the appellant/complainant was engaged
in lending money, that would not debar her from filing a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, if a cheque issued to her towards repayment of the
loan advanced by her is dishonoured by the bank for want
of funds and the drawer of the cheques fails to make
payment within the prescribed time, after receipt of legal
notice from the lender. Section 3 of the Punjab Registration
of Money Lenders' Act, 1938, which applies to Delhi, to the
extent it is relevant provides that notwithstanding anything
contained in any other enactment for the time being in
force, a suit by a money lender for the recovery of a loan
shall, after the commencement of the Act, be dismissed
unless the money lender at the time of institution of the suit
is registered and holds a valid license or holds a certificate
from the Commissioner granted under Section 11 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 32
12:02:02
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 dishonoured for want of
funds and the borrower fails to make payment of the
amount of the cheque even after receipt of a notice from the
lender.
This court in Guddo Devi @ Guddi V Bhupender Kumar,
Crl.Rev.P. 1246/2019 decided on 11.02.2020 observed thatthere is no
material to conclude that the respondent was carrying on the business
of advancing loans. Merely because the respondent had lent money to
three or four persons, did not lead to the inference that the respondent
had been carrying out the activity of money lending as a business.
12.2 The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ravinder Paul V
Ashwani Kumar, CRA-S-2319-SB-2012 (O&M) decided on
04.02.2020 observed as under:-
The trial Court had dismissed the complaint mainly for the
reason that the complainant was a money lender, lending
money without licence. The Magistrate had not gone into
the merits of the case as to whether the necessary
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 33
12:02:02
ingredients of Section 138 of the Act were established or
not. Therefore, the impugned judgment dismissing the
complaint for the reason of complainant having been found
to be a professional money lender practicing money lending
without licence is not sustainable.
12.3 The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Samarendra Nath
Das V Supriyo Maitra, C.R.R No. 175/05 and application being
C.R. A.N. No. 598/05decided on 16.12.2005 observed that alleged
violation of provisions of Money Lenders Act does not bar
continuation of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. It was held
as under:-
11. The submissions made by Mr. Ukilis not at all
applicable in the present matter. Had it been a money suit
instituted by the money lender for the recovery of the loan
advanced by him together with interest and for accounting
all these submissions would have been relevant. In a
criminal proceeding u/s 138 of the NI Act these are not
relevant at all. In the instant matter a Magistrate is to
consider whether the offence as alleged was committed or
not and whether evidence is sufficient to prove
complainant's case. Legality or illegality of the contract and
existence and non-existence of money lending business by
the complainant is not a ground to throw the complainant's
case out of Court. If it was a money suit for recovery of the
money the accused petitioner would have been definitely in
a better position and was entitled to the advantage of
violation of Sections 23 and 24 of the Contract Act as well
as non-existence of money lending business of the money
lender. The accused petitioner has only remedy in the trial
to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act, and to
establish his case by leading evidence when he would be
asked to enter into defence after his examination u/s 313 of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 34
12:02:02
the Code would be over. When all the prima facie materials
of offence u/s 138 of the NI Act is present sufficient to issue
process this, Court would not interfere into the order of the
learned Magistrate and would not quash the criminal
proceeding or set aside the order of the learned Magistrate.
The accused petitioner has remedy only to lead evidence by
examining witnesses and producing documents to prove
that there was no transaction with complainant or that he
did not issue any cheque in favour of the complainant and
that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of his
entering into defence and leading his evidence.
12. The point for consideration before the learned
Magistrate would be whether act or omission of the accused
petitioner completed offence u/s 138 of the NI Act. It would
not be a matter for consideration before the learned
Magistrate whether the complainant had money lending
licence or not. This is not a suit or proceeding under Money
Lenders Act and accordingly provisions of Money Lenders
Act are not at all relevant for consideration in the trial
before the learned Magistrate.
The High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Jupiter
Brokerage Services Ltd. V Ektara Exports Pvt. Ltd. & others,
C.R.A. No936 of 2013 (Appellate Side) decided on 13.10.2015, the
court considered defence of the respondents/accused that the
transactions in question were simple lending of money for which the
appellant/complainant had no valid licence and hence the provisions
of Section 138 or 139 of the Act are not attracted in the case and this
argument was accepted by the trial court and the trial court
dismissed the appellant/complainant's case on such ground only.It
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 35
12:02:02
was observed that money lending without licence is not totally barred
or prohibited by the Bengal Money-Lender's Act, 1940 which is
basically a Regulatory Act and regulates the business of money
lending. It was held as under:-
There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the
presumptions both in Section 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act
are rebuttable presumptions. In the present case the only
point for rebuttable of such presumptions for the
respondents/accused is that the transactions in question are
illegal transactions as the appellant/complainant has no
money-lending licence. As held earlier, lending money
without having a money-lending licence itself is not
prohibited under the Bengal Money-Lender's Act, 1940. So,
the presumptions in favour of the appellant/complainant
stand unrebutted. The respondents/accused cannot,
therefore, escape from the liability under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, especially when there is no denial of the fact that
the respondents/accused issued the cheques in question
which were dishonoured due to insufficient fund in the
account of the respondents/accused.
12.4 A Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in V.
Satyanarayana V Sandeep Enterprises, 2005 CriLJ 12 while
interpreting money lender also observed as under:-
Even otherwise, if assumed that the cheques were issued by
the petitioner/accused in the course of money lending -
business, that itself does not attract the provisions
contained in Karnataka Money Lenders Act. This is
because, under said Act, money lender means "a person,
who carried on the business of money lending" and to say
that one is a money lender, he or she must carry on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 36
12:02:02
business in money lending in the State and, to record an
activity as business, there must be a course of dealings
carried with a profit motive. In other words, money lending
must be carried on as profession. If the money lending was
not with profit motive or, not carried on as a profession, he
or she does not become a money lender under the
Karnataka Money Lenders Act........ So, a stray instance of
lending money does not show carrying on the business of
money lending as profession or with profit motive.
12.5 It is acceptable proposition of law that section 3 of Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938 does not limit operation of
section 138 of the Act and both are independent and mutually
exclusive to each other. If a person advances a loan even without
having a valid money lending licence or certificate he can institute
and prosecute complaint under section 138 of the Act on basis of
cheques and he has to satisfy only the mandatory requirements of
section 138 of the Act.
13. The trial court in complaint bearing no 346/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Abdul Ahad after cognizance being taken under section
138 of the Act and notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. was given for
offence under section 138 of the Act, vide proceedings dated
04.09.2013 abruptly examined the petitioner under section 165 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein the petitioner stated that he has
filed around 15-20 complaints under section 138 of the Act against
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 37
12:02:02
12 persons and he had given money to the respondents Sarfaraz and
Ahad for their chit fund activities and money was given to rest of the
respondents due to friendly relations. The trial court preferred to
issue a show cause notice to the petitioner during trial which is
absolutely unknown in summon trial as per Chapter XX of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to explain as to whether he is engaged in
business of money lending and if he is so engaged, whether he has
any statutory licence for doing money lending business and further
all the complaints pertaining to the petitioner as complainant were
ordered to be placed on same day. The petitioner replied show cause
notice wherein the petitioner stated that he is not engaged in business
of money lending. Thereafter the trial court in orders dated
15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 on fact that the petitioner advanced loan
to many persons assumed without any legal and factual basis that the
petitioner is a money lender and loans advanced by the petitioner to
the respondents fall with in definition of loan as per Punjab
Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1938.The information given by
the petitioner in response to queries put to him under section 165 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 was confined to only that he had given
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 38
12:02:02
money to the respondents which did not reflect in any manner his
activities as professional manner. The petitioner in reply to show
cause notice categorically stated that he is not engaged in business of
money lending. The trial court should not have dismissed the nine
complaints vide order dated 15.07.2015 and three complaints vide
order dated 20.08.2015 and these orders are outcome of complete
non-application of judicial mind by the trial court and in total
contravention of procedure laid down in Chapter XX of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The orders dated 15.07.2015 and
20.08.2015 are illogical, abrupt and completely illegal and cannot be
sustained in view of the accepted proposition of law as discussed
hereinabove. The trial court should have proceeded with trial of
complaints under section 138 of the Act. The trial court should not
have dismissed the complaints under section 138 of the Act filed by
the petitioners merely on basis of statement of the petitioners
recorded under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 and
reply given by the petitioner in response to show cause notice. The
trial court reliance on two decisions delivered by the Bombay High
Court was misplaced under given facts and circumstances of present
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 39
12:02:02
petitions. There is legal force in arguments advanced by the counsel
for the petitioner that the provisions of the Punjab Registration of
Money Lenders Act, 1938 are not applicable to the complaints filed
under the Act and the complaints can be decided without evidence
being led to show that petitioner was a Money Lender. The
arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondents on this issue
are without any legal basis and are legally unsustainable.
13.1 The trial court dismissed the complaints at pre-trial stage
without giving an opportunity to the petitionerto lead evidence. The
Supreme Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section
138 of N.I. Act, 1881, AIR2021SC1957 as argued and cited by the
counsel for the petitioner has held that Section 258 of Cr. P.C. is not
applicable to a summons case instituted on a complaint and as such
section 258 Cr. P.C does not have any role to play in respect of the
complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. The trial court is not
vested with inherent power either to review or recall the order of
issuance of process. It was also observed by this court in Court on
its Own Motion V State, Neutral Citation No: 2022/DHC/001932
that the court of a magistrate does not have the power to discharge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 40
12:02:02
the accused upon his appearance in court in a summons trial case
based upon a complaint including complaints under section 138 of
the Act once cognizance has already been taken and process is
ordered to be issued under section 204 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, trial
court has adopted a wrong procedure alien to chapter XX of the Code
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in dismissing complaints merely
on basis of examination of the petitioner under section 165 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and reply to show cause notice and
without resorting to trial as per the law.
13.2 The counsel for the respondents argued that present revision
petitions are not maintainable as the orders dated 15.07.2015 and
20.08.2015 were in the nature of dismissal of complaint as well as
acquittal of the accused i.e. the respondents no 2.
The counsel for the petitioner to the contrary argued that the
trial court has dismissed the complaints abruptly without concluding
the trial which does not amount to acquittal. This court in revisional
jurisdiction can exercise its power in cases where there is palpable
error, non-compliance with the provisions of law, the decision is
completely erroneous or where the judicial discretion is exercised
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 41
12:02:02
arbitrarily. The legality, propriety or correctness of an order passed
by the Metropolitan Magistrate is the very foundation of exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. The counsel for the petitioner cited Amit
Kapoor V Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 and other decisions
delivered by the Superior Court.
13.2.1The trial court vide 15.07.2015 ordered dismissed nine
complaints as detailed hereinabove.The trial court in order dated
20.08.2015 while dismissing the three complaints ordered for
acquittal for the accused i.e. the respondents no 2 of complaints
bearing no 227/13,298/13 & 401/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Sarfaraz Ahmad. The trial court has not dismissed the complaints
and acquitted the respondent no 2 after conclusion of trial and on
basis of evidence to be led by the contesting parties but on wrong
assumption of legal principles and without resorting to settled legal
principles which resulted into miscarriage of justice to the petitioner.
Hence, the present revision petitions are maintainable without
resorting to filing appeals . The arguments advanced by the counsel
for the respondents are without legal force.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 42
12:02:02
13.3 The counsel for the respondents argued that the petitioner by not
invoking the appropriate jurisdiction before the sessions court and
without giving sound reasonscannot file present revision petition
before this court directly and as such present petitions deserve to be
dismissed being not maintainable. The counsel for the petitioner after
referring CBI V State of Gujarat, (2007) 6 SCC 156 argued that the
revision petition against an order passed by Magistrate can be filed
directly before the High Court. Section 397 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 gives concurrent jurisdiction to both High Court and
Sessions Court and such present revision petitions can be filed
directly to the High Court over the Sessions Court. The present
petitions are as such maintainable before this court.
14. The arguments advanced and case law cited by respective counsel
for the petitioner and the respondents no 2 are perused and
appropriately appreciated in right perspective. The present petitions
are allowed and the orders dated 15.07.2015 and 20.08.2015 are set
aside. The complaints bearing no 269/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Abdul Ahad; 346/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad;
265/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Farooq @ Bablu; 298/13 titled
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 43
12:02:02
as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed; 725/13 titled as Hansraj
Bansal V Arshad Ahmed; 948/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V
Farooq @ Bablu; 227/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz
Ahmed; 478/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Shish Pal Tomar;
464/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad and 401/13 titled
as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed filed by the petitioners are
remanded back to concerned trial court for expeditious trial in
accordance with law. The petitioner and the respondents no 2 of
above mentioned complaints are directed to appear before concerned
court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for further assignment to
competent court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.09.2023 at
2:30 pm.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 12, 2023
N/SD
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:15.09.2023 CRL.REV.P. 228/2017 & connected matters Page 44
12:02:02
