ORDER

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.966/2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Kochi arising from Crime No.653/2015 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act read with Section 3 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act.

Annexure A1 is the F.I.R and Annexure A2 is the final report.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had advanced a loan of Rs.3,50,00/- during February, 2012 to the defacto complainant. It is further alleged that an amount of Rs.24,500/- was paid as interest until May, 2015. Further, the defacto complainant claims that inclusive of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- that was repaid towards principal, she had paid an amount of Rs.5,83,000/- to the petitioner. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner committed the offences under the provisions of the Kerala Money Lenders Act read with Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act. Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Notice was issued to the 2nd respondent on several occasions. At last, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to instruct the investigating officer to serve notice to the victim as per order dated 08.08.2024. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the son of the victim is hospitalised at Velloor Hospital and therefore, the notice is served to the victim through WhatsApp message, which he received. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the service to the 2nd respondent can be declared as complete.

5. The short point raised by the petitioner is that, prosecution allege a single instance of money transaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Annexure A3 and Annexure A5 are the legal notices issued by the petitioner to the victim under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Annexure A4 is the reply sent by the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, since it is a single transaction as per the decisions of this Court in Sasidharan v. Sub Inspector (2023 (1) KHC 31) and Vimal v. State of Kerala and Others (2015 KHC 2395), the offence is not applicable. The relevant portion of the judgment in Sasidharan v. Sub Inspector (supra) is extracted hereunder:-

“10. A glance at the definition and a reference to the preamble as well as the objects of the Act reveal that what is intended to be regulated, is not a solitary instance of money lending. but a series of activity, taking the form of a business of advancing and realising loans.

11. The term business has a significant connotation in legal parlance. A continuous or series of activity which partake the character of an occupation can be regarded as business under law. The word business is a term of wide important and has to mean an activity carried on continuously and systematically by use of his labour or skill with a view to earn an income. The term has to be perceived from the purport of the Statute and the contextual implications. Dehors the contextual setting one salient feature of business is continuity. Reference can profitably be made to the various definitions of the term business as enunciated in P. Ramanatha Aiyar's "The Advanced Law Lexicon" 4th Edition. In all those definitions, continuous activity is regarded as essential to treat an activity as business.

12. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the decision in Vimal v. State of Kerala, 2015 (1) KLT 524, wherein this Court had held that lending money to a person under one or more documents will not by itself constitute the offence of unauthorised money lending under the Kerala Money Lenders Act. Similarly, in the decision in OP (Crl.) No.64/2015 dated 06/04/2015, also this Court