2019:JHHC:39360 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Acq. Appeal (C) No.14 of 2018 .... [Against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.09.2018 passed in C.P. Case No.1090 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad] .... Ram Naresh Singh, aged about 62 years, son of Late Ram Dhani Singh, resident of H.I.G. Plot No.24, Housing Colony, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad .… Appellant Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Rekha Sharma, wife of Anil Sharma, resident of C/o D.N. Sharma, New Kishoreganj, Road No.4, Ratu Road, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi .... Respondents .... CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR For the Appellant : Ms. Aakansha Mittal, Adv. For the State : Mrs. Amrita Kumari, APP For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. A.K.Kashyap, Sr. Adv. : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Adv. .... 10/16.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present acquittal appeal has been filed to challenge the correctness and legality of the judgment of acquittal dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1090 of 2017. 3. It has been initiated with the complaint case to which the cognizance has been taken. During trial, the complainant has examined only one witness i.e. C.W.- 1, namely Ram Naresh Singh, who is the complainant himself. He has filed the following documents in support of his case:- i) The cheque bearing no. 659082 dated 15/03/2017 for Rs. 1,00,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank as exhibit-1 ii) The cheque return memo dated 17.03/2017, marked as exhibit-2 iii) The cheque bearing no. 659083 dated 22/03/2017 for Rs. 90,000/- drawn on Allahabad Bank as exhibit-3 iv) The cheque return memo dated 27.03.2017, marked as exhibit-4 v) Legal demand notice dated 03.04.2017, marked as exhibit-5 vi) Speed Post Receipt dated 03.04.2017, marked as exhibit-6 In his examination-in-chief on affidavit, the complainant has stated that the accused and her husband obtained financial assistance from him on their joint assurance. He transferred ₹45,000/- each to their respective bank accounts and later paid ₹1,00,000/- in cash, totaling ₹1,90,000/- at 10% interest to be calculated from the last date of lending. In partial 2019:JHHC:39360 2 discharge of liability, the accused issued two cheques (₹1,00,000/- and ₹90,000/-), both of which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite demand and legal notice dated 03.04.2017, no payment was made, leading to filing of the case. The complainant proved Exhibits 1 to 6. In cross-examination, the complainant admitted limited knowledge regarding the accused’s business and his son’s involvement. He stated he had no direct dealings with the accused in the year 2013 and became aware of certain facts later. He could not recall key details such as repayment amounts and had no proof of service of legal notice. He also admitted that the cheque details were not filled in his presence. 9. Defence has also examined one witnesses namely Anil Sharma in support of its case. Beside the oral evidence, defence has also got exhibited the following documents:- 1. Exhibit A - The bill of Apsara Hotel, Ranchi. 2. Exhibit B, B/1, B/2, B/3, B/4,B/5,B/6 and B/7 are cash deposit vouchers. D.W.-1 has stated that Rekha Sharma started Meridian Courses with the support of Anurag Vijay, who later became a silent partner. He claimed that two blank cheques were given as security and that he had borrowed ₹90,000/- from Anurag Vijay, out of which ₹78,000/- was repaid. He denied receiving any legal notice and termed the complainant’s case as false. In cross-examination, he admitted that there was no written agreement regarding the business or cheques, could not recall key details, and had no documentary proof of transactions or business activities. 4. The trial court has appreciated the evidence and also has gone to the legal question whether the transaction between the parties is legally enforceable contract or not? 5. Paragraph No.18 of the impugned judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “18. Further, the law is also well settled that section 138 is attracted only if the cheque is issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. The term 'legally enforceable' means any amount which the complainant has right to get enforce its realization through legal processes. The complainant has admitted in para 4 of his complaint petition as well as para 4 of deposition that he has given total sum of Rs 2019:JHHC:39360 3 1,90,000/- on interest at the rate of 10% calculated from the date of lending, which is also mentioned in legal demand notice served by him. But he has neither stated about his capacity to give loan on interest nor produced any document relating to his money lending capacity. As per the provision of money lending act no one can give any type of loan on interest without any valid license. Money given on interest without having any license for it is illegal. Therefore, it cannot be held that the debt was legally enforceable as stipulated u/s 138 of the Act. 6. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 reads as under:- 138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.— Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless— (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.” 7. Law is settled that a legally enforceable dues is only in the jurisdictional area of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881. Money lending that too on the interest is 2019:JHHC:39360 4 not permissible rather the Act is clear that for any illegal transaction the jurisdiction of Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 cannot be entertained. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal dated 13.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No.1090 of 2017. Accordingly, the present acquittal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) 16.03.2026 Shahid/ Uploaded on 01.04.2026