JUDGEMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the Judgement dt.

5.8.2002 in C.C.No. 47 of 1999 on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

As there was no representation for the appellant on the last date of hearing, this Court passed docket order stating that if the counsel for the appellant does not turn up on the next date of hearing, the matter will be decided on merits and posted the matter to this day. Even today also there is no representation for the appellant and therefore the matter is taken up and disposed of on merits.

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant was doing business under the name and style of M/s Satguru Enterprises at Secunderabad. The respondent/accused who is known to the complainant borrowed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on. 27.5.1998 and executed a demand promissory note (Ex:P.5) on the same day agreeing to repay the said amount on demand. On the same day, the accused also handed over a post dated cheque to the complainant for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards security to the loan borrowed. Since the accused did not repay the due amount, the complainant presented the cheque for encashment on 25.10.1998 but it was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds and the same was intimated to the accused under Ex:P.2 dt. 2.11.1998. Subsequently, the complainant got issued a registered notice on 16.11.1998 to the 1st respondent demanding to pay the amount covered by the cheque and that the respondent having received the notice did not give any reply. Then the appellant filed complaint petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate to punish the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. During the course of trial, before the learned Magistrate, the complainant was examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs P.1 to P.6.

The learned Magistrate, after appreciating the evidence brought on record, acquitted the accused by the Judgement dt. 5.8.2002. Against the said Judgement, the complainant filed the present appeal.

The respondent/accused did not dispute about the issuance of the cheque to the complainant. Her principal contention is that in Telangana area any person doing money- lending business shall obtain a certificate as provided under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 F from the competent authority and in the absence of any such certificate, a person who lends money is debarred from recovering the same before a court of law. From the evidence of Pw.1, it is clear that he was doing business under the name and style of M/s Satuguru Enterprises. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the nature of transactions in his business concern is money lending and collecting. He also admitted in his cross-examination that the money was advanced to the respondent under the cheque discount system. From the admissions made by Pw.1 in his cross-examination, it is clear that Pw.1 was doing money-lending business and he had lent amount to the respondent in the course of such business.

Before the Court below, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused relied on a decision reported in M/s Baba [1]

Finance Corporation vs. Mohd Nayeem wherein it was laid down that the a money lender as defined under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Money Lenders Act 1349 F must obtain a money lending license from the competent authority and if he does not possess license, the court shall dismiss the suit. In other words such a money-lender cannot claim the debt or liability from his debtors without a valid money lending license. It was also further held that the complaint filed by such money lender without any license, the Court cannot take congnizance of the offence since the dishonoured cheque was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. In the instant case admittedly Pw.1 is a money-lender and he did not produce any license issued b