GULABRAO MAHADEO GHORPADE Vs. CHANDRAKANT PANDHARINATH NEHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Advocate Shri. Sawant for the Appellant-Complainant and learned Advocate Ms. Ayubi appointed by the High Court Legal Services Committee for the Respondent-Accused. The Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class Pune, vide judgment and order dtd. 30/7/2012 was pleased to acquit the Respondent for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. All the points were answered in favour of the Appellant except the point about carrying a money lending business by the complainant without license.

(2.) It was held against the complainant and finally the Respondent was acquitted. This is the complainant's Appeal. Parties will be referred to by their original status.

(3.) So the issue involved in this Appeal is whether on the basis of the documents produced by the accused, can it be said that the complainant was carrying a money lending business and without license. The relevant findings are para no.10 to para no.17. According to learned Advocate Shri. Sawant for the complainant, the trial Court has not considered the entire provisions of Bombay Money Lenders Act and particularly the meaning of business of money lending, loan, whereas, according to learned Advocate Ms. Ayubi when there are certified copies of documents that is complaint and judgment at Exhibit-25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are filed what more is required.