VED RAM Vs. MAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, seeking leave to appeal to assail the judgment dated 5.1.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Manali dismissing the complaint preferred by the applicant/appellant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act'), preferred by applicant/appellant, is vehemently opposed by the respondent/accused.

(2.) The trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that complainant has neither furnished any income tax return reflecting the advancing of loan of Rs.1 lac in cash, which was more than Rs. 20,000/- nor placed on record any document like pronote or agreement executed between the parties, at the time of alleged advancing of Rs. 1 lacs to the respondent/accused by complainant and also that complainant was not possessing any money lender's licence for advancing loan to public at large, as the respondent/accused, for proving documents Ext.D1 and Ext.D2 as evidence with respect to numerous cases filed by complainant under Section 138 of NI Act against different persons, has proved that complainant was in business of money lending and therefore, has contended that loan alleged to have been advanced by complainant to the respondent/accused, was not legally recoverable debt and therefore the complainant was legally debarred from recovering the same from the respondent.

(3.) Referring Section 3 of the H.P. Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, it has been contended that being an unregistered money lenders, the complaint filed by the appellant/applicant has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court as the same was barred under the Money Lenders Act.