1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revision No. 207 of 2005 Date of Decision: 18.8.2010 *** Tarsem Lal Aggarwal .. Petitioner Vs. M/s Star Financers & Anr. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Mandeep Kaushik, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Gupta,Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent-complainant. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner was tried by the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the allegations that the cheque amounting to Rs.1,86,592/-, issued by the petitioner in the capacity of guarantor of one Prem Chand Sharma who took a loan from the complainant i.e. M/s Star Financers and died, was dis-honoured. On conclusion of trial, the charge against the petitioner was found proved by the learned trial court and accordingly he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default thereof further rigorous imprisonment for three months was provided. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate Court below, leading to the institution of the present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during pendency of the appeal, the suit for recovery filed by the complainant M/s 2 Star Financers, had been dismissed on 24.10.2002 mainly on the ground that undisputedly M/s Star Financer was engaged in the business of money lending but without any licence, which is required under Section 3 of Punjab Registration of Money Lending Act. Resultantly, an application had been filed before the learned lower Appellate Court on 5.3.2003 for permission to produce the copy of the judgment dated 24.10.2002, obviously by way of additional evidence though not mentioned in the application, the reply of which was sought, but that application remained undecided. Learned counsel has contended that due to this the legal submission that the complainant, who is a money lender but without any licence, could not have maintain legally enforceable right for recovery of the amount as contemplated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as has been held in the cases of of M/s Krishnam Raju Finances, Hyderabad Vs. Abida Sultana and another 2004 Crl. Law Journal 4019 and Anil Baburao Kataria Vs. Purshottam Prabhakar Kawane 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 771. There is no representation for and on behalf of the respondent- complainant. In view of the above, the judgment passed by the learned appellate Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the appellate Court below with a direction to decide the application and appeal, afresh, after hearing both the parties, in the light of the legal position enumerated above, but without being influenced from what has been observed above and to dispose of the same in accordance with law, within six months. The petitioner to appear before the appellate Court below on 20.9.2010. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE August 18,2010 Jiten