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
