Cheque bounce case -- Legal enforceable liability -- Onus of proof -- From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Legal enforceable liability -- Onus of proof -- From the receipt it is clear that cheque in question was issued for recovery of the moneys advanced to him by way of cash from time to time with interest @ 2% per month -- Burden of proof to show that the complainant was a money lender under licence to do the business of money lending was upon the complainant but no document was produced -- Section 138 of the Act contemplates legally enforceable liability -- In the wake of the above finding and reasons discussed above, the appellant could not have enforced his claim into the cheque in question which was issued in illegal money lending transaction -- Appeal against acquittal is therefore dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 25.09.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Loan on interest -- In his cross-examination, the appellant had stated that he had given the loan amount to the respondent on interest -- However, the appellant does not hold any licence for money lending -- No document was accepted by the appellant regarding advancing of loan or that respondent has furnished any security for repayment of amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- appears to be highly improbable – Acquittal order upheld.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 01.03.2017

Cheque bounce case -- Legal issue -- Held, complainant was dealing in money lending business to the public at large, however, is not having the money lender's licence -- Without having the aforesaid licence, the advancement of loan by the complainant to the petitioner-accused is not only illegal, but at the same time, he can also be prosecuted – It is a legal issue and can be raised any stage – Accused acquitted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.03.2015

Cheque bounce case -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Complainant used to lend money on credit basis to different persons, but he did not possess any money lender's licence -- Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 is applicable to the State of Haryana -- Section 4(2) postulates that no money lender shall carry on the business of advancing loans unless he gets himself registered under sub-section (1) -- Likewise, Section 3 of the Act posits that a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a loan or an application by a moneylender for the execution of a decree relating to a loan, shall be dismissed, unless the money-lender is registered and holds a valid license – Having a money lender's license is a condition precedent to advance the loan to the Farmers – Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 13.11.2014