1 appa537.11.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 537/2011 Rajendra Ramkrishna Chincholkar ..vs.. Pralhad Sitaram Navalkar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. A. Mohta, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M. S. Sambare, Advocate for respondent CORAM : M.N.GILANI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 20, 2011. 1. The appellant is original complainant in Summary Criminal Case No. 4088/2008 decided on 28.06.2011 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola whereby the accused-respondent herein was acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The appellant had advanced Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent. By way of security, the respondent issued cheque. After it was dishonoured for insufficient funds, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed. The learned JMFC held that the cheque was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant. He further held that when presented to the Bank, it was dishonoured for “insufficient funds.” However, the learned Magistrate was of the view that the cheque advanced was 2 appa537.11.odt not for legally enforceable liability. By referring to the admissions given by the appellant in his cross-examination, the learned Magistrate arrived at a conclusion that he was doing money lending business without license and consequently held that the debt outstanding against the respondent was not legally enforceable liability. In that light of the matter, the respondent came to be acquitted. 3. In Shobhita Rani Kaushal ..vs.. Ketty Jehangir H. Dhanjibhoy & anr. 2008 (6) Bom. C. R. 114,the learned Single Judge of this Court interpreted the term “Business of money- lending” occurring under Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946 and held that it connotes systematic repetition and continuity. For a person to be money lender, he must in regular course of business advance loans. Stray act of advancing loan does not amount business of money lending. 3. The learned Magistrate found that apart from advancing loan to the respondent, loan to four more persons was also advanced. Thus, this becomes a matter of appreciation as to whether under the facts and circumstances, it can be held that the appellant was doing business of money lending. Thus, in my view, arguable points are involved, therefore, the leave as prayed for is granted. 3 appa537.11.odt Appeal : Admit. Mr. Sambare, learned counsel for the respondent, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Hence, action under Section 390 of the Cr. P. C. is dispensed with. JUDGE kahale