The court clarified the applicability of the bar against unregistered money lenders and emphasized the need for proper appreciation of evidence in cases involving dishonoured cheques.

Sureshwar Thakur, J.

1. The complainant/victim, is aggrieved, by the pronouncement, of an order, of acquittal by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis the accused, upon, Cr. Case No. 1412/3 of 2014/2013.

2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case, are that the complainant lent a sum of Rs. 1 lac to the accused in the month of September, 2012. This amount was to be repaid within one year. He further lent a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the accused in the month of March, 2013, amount whereof was to be repaid within six months. The aforesaid amounts was advanced in presence of Smt. Pushpa Devi w/o Shri Chet Ram, R/o Sant Niwas, Ambedkar Colony, Dhalli, District Shimla. The accused gave an undertaking for a sum of Rs. 1 lac out of the total amount. The complainant also submits that he also arranged a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for accused on her request, made, through Smt. Pushpa Devi. He further submits that when he demanded the aforesaid amount, the accused issued a cheque No. 072825 of 15.09.2013, in his favour, drawn at Allahabad Bank, Shimla, amount to Rs. 1,72,500/-. The said cheque was returned unpaid on 9.10.2013 with remarks “funds insufficient.” The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused through registered post and it was replied by the accused, however, she failed to defray the cheque amount. Hence the complaint.

3. A notice of accusation, was, put to the accused by the learned trial Court, for hers, committing an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In proof of his case, the complainant examined 2 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the complainant's evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, besides she examined two witnesses in her defence.

4. On an appraisal, of, the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal qua the accused/respondent herein.

5. The complainant, stands, aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded qua the accused/respondent. He, has concertedly, and, vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing se-quelled by gross mis-appreciation of the material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal, warranting reversal, by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, and, theirs standing replaced by findings of conviction.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused/respondent herein, has with considerable force and vigour, also contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court rather standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation, by it, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication.

7. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record.

8. The accused issued cheque, borne, in Ex.CW1/A vis-a-vis the accused, and, upon its presentation, before, the bankers concerned, it, as reflected in memo Ex.CW1/C, and, in Ex.CW1/C, was hence dishonoured, for want of sufficient funds, in the accounts of the accused. Subsequent thereto, the complainant sent a notice, borne, in Ex. CW1/D, for, hence beseeching the accused to liquidate the amount, borne, in the dishonoured negotiable instrument. The accused/respondent, has not, denied the existence of her signatures, on, Ex.CW1/A. The complainant in support of the averments, embodied, in the complaint, of, his on 9.9.2012, and, in March, 2013, in the presence of, one, Pushpa Devi, respectively handing over to the respondent/accused, a sum of Rs. 1 lac and, a further sum of Rs. 72,000/- has, rendered testifications, bearing consonance therewith. The testific