Back
2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 41068
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
B.KEMAL PASHA, J
A.M.GOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.MC/4204/2016
SRI.PRADEESH CHACKO, SRI.RAJU JOSEPH, SMT.HYMA
A person cannot be charged under the Kerala Money Lenders Act or IPC 420 without clear evidence of engaging in money lending activities or lacking a required license.
Headnote:
Criminal - Money Lending - IPC 420 and Kerala Money Lenders Act 17 - Court confirmed that the absence of a money lending licence and evidence of money lending activities negates the applicability of the accused under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner faces charges under IPC Section 420 and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act after police raided their office and seized various documents, suspecting unauthorized money lending activities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that evidence did not support claims of the petitioner conducting unauthorized money lending. As the petitioner conducted a lawful chitty business, the allegations under the relevant sections were unfounded.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was conducting money lending activities without a license under the Kerala Money Lenders Act and if the charges under IPC Section 420 were applicable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without proving the operation of a money lending business or an absence of a required license, the allegations under the money lending act cannot be substantiated.
Final Decision: All charges against the petitioner in the case are quashed.
O R D E R
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Petitioner is the accused in CC No.840/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, which has arisen from Crime No.1157/2014 of Kothamangalam Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC and Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act , 1958.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has never been involved in any money lending business and he has not obtained any licence for money lending also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is engaged in conducting chitty business lawfully.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that on a raid conducted by the police at the office premises of the petitioner, certain cheques, blank stamp papers and possession certificates could be recovered and seized and there is everything to suspect that the petitioner was engaged in money lending business unauthorisedly and illegally, by obtaining such documents as security from the members of the public.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the statements of the witnesses concerned, have revealed that they were subscribers of various chitties being conducted by the petitioner and at the time when the auction amounts in the chitty were obtained, such documents were obtained from them by the petitioner as security for the chitty amount. Even if such documents are seized from the possession of the petitioner, unless and until it is shown that he is conducting money lending, either Section 420 IPC or Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act cannot be attracted. Here, even if securities are obtained through whatever means for disbursing chitty amounts, Section 17 of the has no application. An offence under Section 17 of the can be attracted only in a case wherein a person has been conducting money lending without licence or he has been violating the terms of licence for money lending. When there is no such allegation, there is no meaning in proceeding with the matter further, and all further proceedings as against the petitioner in CC No.840/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, which has arisen from Crime No.1157/2014 of Kothamangalam Police Station, can be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.840/2015 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kothamangalam, which has arisen from Crime No.1157/2014 of Kothamangalam Police Station, are quashed.
