In order to establish an offence under section 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused carried on money lending business in an area for which he did not have a licence.

JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---The petitioner before me was the accused in the courts below against whom an allegation was made that he was carrying on money lending business in the village Ambet without the requisite licence in that behalf under the Bombay Money Lenders Act.

2. The complaint against him was that between 24th June, 1974 and 4th November, 1975, he was found carrying on business of money lending without licence at village Ambet and had thereby committed offences under section 5 read with section 34 of the Money Lenders Act. Both the courts have found him guilty of the offence alleged against him and hence the present revision application was filed by the original accused.

3. Very briefly stated the prosecution case was as follows :---

P.W. 1, Abdul Shankar Hussein Miya Dhoken, made a complaint at the Police Station that the accused used to go to the village Ambet for business of money lending. His grievance was that during the period from 1964 to 1974 his wife had pledged her ornaments with the accused and had received loan from him; that the accused used to charge interest at the rate of 3% per month; that on 25th May, 1974, the witness paid a sum of Rs. 3200/- to the accused and got some ornaments redeemed and that when on 29th October, 1975, the witness went to the accused at Mahad for demanding the remaining ornaments pledged by his wife with the accused, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for redeeming the remaining ornaments. The allegation was that as a matter of fact the accused tried to evade his obligation to return the ornaments. In these circumstances, the witness contacted the police and on 4-11-1975 a report was filed by him at the Police Station. After the necessary investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused by the police on 30th November, 1975, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, F.C. Shriwardha, for an offence under section 5 read with section 34 of the Money Lenders Act.

4. The case was tried by the learned Magistrate as a summary case. Hence, no question of framing formal charge as such arose. However, from the summary of the case it is evident that the offence that was complained of against the accused was the follows :---

"Between 24-6-1974 to 4-11-1975 you were found carrying on business of money lending without licence at village Ambet and thereby committed an offence under section 5 read with section 34 of Money Lenders Act".

It is thus clear that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had no money lending licence whatsoever. The case of the prosecution appears to be that the accused did not have money lending licence at village Ambet. It was, therefore, necessary for the prosecution to lead evidence to show that the accused was carrying on business of money lending at Ambet.

5. It is needless to state that the accused pleaded not guilty and hence the evidence was led by the prosecution to prove the offence on the part of the accused for breach of the provisions of section 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act. In all 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. It is needles to go through the evidence of all the witnesses. The list of the evidence of all the witnesses has been believed by both the courts below and I find no reason to disagree with the findings arrived at by both the courts below as regards the said evidence. Out of the 10 witnesses, 7 prosecution witnesses stated that ornaments had been pledged with the accused against which security accused had advanced certain amount to them and that the rate of interest charged by the accused was of 3% per month. The relevant witness also stated further that when they tried to get back the ornaments by payment of the amounts, the accused evaded the return to the ornaments fraudulently concealed the ornaments and returned the ornaments with him. On the strength of the evidence the learned Magistrate found that the accused was guilty of the offence under section 5 read with section 34 of the Bombay Mon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document