The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of registration under the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 does not affect the criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this acquittal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 31.01.2017 passed by the First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “First Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.172 of 2015 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in Criminal Complaint Case No.38 of 2013, whereby the Trial Court has convicted the accused Ku. Reshu Kaur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I. Act”) and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lac rupees), in default of payment of compensation, she would further undergo additional imprisonment for 6 months.

2. Brief facts for disposal of instant acquittal appeal, are that, accused Ku. Reshu Kaur had taken a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-(Three Lac rupees) from complainant Puran Lal Peshwani on 30.09.2011 and executed promissory note vide Ex.P/1. She had issued cheque bearing No.000004 dated 30.10.2012 (Ex.P/2) for payment of said amount, which the complainant deposited in his bank account. Thereafter, he was informed through Bank memo (Ex.P/3) dated 02.11.2012 that said cheque was not remunerated due to insufficient funds in accused's account. Upon said information, on 09.11.2012, complainant sent legal notice (Ex.P/4) to accused by registered post through his Advocate demanding cheque amount, postal receipt of which is annexed as Ex.P/5. But, neither mail returned nor any report was came, then information regarding said post was sought from Chief Post Master vide Ex.P/6, upon which, information of Ex.P/7 & Ex.P/8 was sent in envelope (Ex.P/9) by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Raipur Division, Raipur, in which, it was stated that notice was delivered to given address on 17.11.2012. When accused did not pay the amount within 15 days of service, complainant filed a complaint on 07.12.2012 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

3. After the accused denied the charge, complainant got himself examined and exhibited 9 documents (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/9). The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, she denied the circumstances appearing against her and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case. She has only stated that she had given a cheque as security. No evidence has been presented in defence by the accused.

4. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as after hearing both the parties, learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 10.09.2015, convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment.

5. Being aggrieved with the judgment dated 10.09.2015, accused has preferred an appeal before the First Appellant Court, in which, she has stated that Trial Court has committed error in arriving at such finding. After evaluating all the facts and circumstances of the case, learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the accused by the judgment dated 31.01.2017 and acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with a finding that cheque in question (Ex.P/2) issued by the accused was dishonored and on the basis of legal notice and demand for amount, accused was not paid the amount. However, First Appellate Court has found that on the date when complainant asked the accused to give a loan, complainant was not registered as per law for doing the business of money lending as he was not hold a license, whereas, complainant himself has accepted the fact that he does the business of money lending by giving loans. In the above situation, First Appellate Court while re