Petitioner faces prosecution in C.C.No.263/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur arising out of Crime No.1078/2016 of Alathur Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 17 and 18(a) of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 [for short, the ‘KML Act’] apart from Sections 3, and 9(a) of the Kerala Prevention of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Prosecution alleges that, the accused had, during the year 2012, indulged in money lending business by lending an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the de facto complainant without any licence under the KML Act, and demanded exorbitant interest. The accused is also alleged to have collected three blank signed cheques and blank papers with the promise to return the same on repayment of the amount, and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. Sri.O.D.Sivadas, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the final report proceeds under the wrong assumption that lending money to a person is an offence, if licence under the KML Act is not obtained. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of this Court in Kurian V.V.v. Leelamma Sebastian and Another 2015 (4) KLT 476 and Sasidharan v. Sub Inspector 2023 (1) KHC 31.

4. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

5. In the decision in Kurian’s case (supra) it was held that casual instances of money lending will not attract a prosecution under the KML Act, and an individual, lending money otherwise than as a money lender, as defined under law, cannot be prosecuted under the provisions of the KML Act.

6. Similarly, in Sasidharan’s case (supra), this Court again observed that a continuous activity of money lending is essential to treat the lending of money as a business, and without such continuous activity, solitary or few instances of money lending cannot be treated as a business in money lending.

7. A perusal of the final report reveals that the money lending business alleged against the petitioner is only a solitary instance of handing over of Rs.50,000/- to the defacto complainant. Therefore, under no circumstances can such a solitary instance be treated as a continuous activity infringing upon the KML Act for non-possession of a licence.

8. As far as the possession of blank cheques and signed documents are concerned, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 entitles a person to possess blank signed cheques. There is no prohibition, under law, in possessing blank signed cheques. Further, possession of a blank signed paper or a negotiable instrument by itself, cannot indicate commission of an offence.

9. In such circumstances, I find that the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.263/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur is an abuse of the process of the court. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.263/2018 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Alathur, are quashed. The Crl.M.C.is allowed.

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AMV/30/01/2024 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2835/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE POLICE.

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE IN CRIME NO.1078/2016 IN CC NO.263 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ALATHUR.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE POLICE ALONG WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES.

TRUE COPY