ORDER : 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 31.01.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G) in Complainant Case No.64/2011, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant and the respondent/accused were familiar to each other and on 15.04.2011 the complainant has advanced the friendly loan for the personal needs to the respondent/accused to the tune of Rs.11,000/- in cash. The respondent/accused has promised to return the same within a period of one month. When he failed to return the said money within the stipulated period, he gave a cheque of Rs.11,000/- vide Ex-P/1 to discharge the said liability on demand. On 25.05.2011 the complainant presented the said cheque before the bank vide Ex-P/2. On 27.05.2011, the Bank has informed about the dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of the fund vide Ex-P/3. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent on 28.05.2011 to the respondent/accused Ex-P/4 and a demand of the cheque amount was also made, however, when the respondent/accused failed to pay the said amount within 15 days, when the complaint has been filed on 20.06.2011. 3. After registration of the case, during trial, the respondent/accused abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove his case, the witness has been examined and the statement of the respondent/accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C wherein he has taken a defence that the complainant has received blank cheque and the same has been misused. After evaluting the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/ accused. Hence this appeal by the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant would submit that the complainant has proved the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 as the cheque was duly issued by the respondent/accused and presumption under Section 139 of the said Act attracts in favour of the holder. The learned trial Court only on the basis that for the earlier loan a written agreement was executed but for the present loan no such written instrument has been executed, acquitted the respondent of the charge. He also submits that acquittal of the respondent/accused is not proper. Learned counsel prays to allow the appeal. 6. The learned trial Court only on the basis that for the earlier loan a written agreement was executed but for the present loan no such written instrument has been executed, acquitted the respondent of the charge. He also submits that acquittal of the respondent/accused is not proper. Learned counsel prays to allow the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Complainant B.B Sharma in his cross-examination has stated that he was doing a job of dresser for the last 15-20 years and from the said work, he used to earn Rs.200-500/- per day. He categorically denies that he was also doing business of the money lending but he corrected his statement and stated that he is having money lending license which he has got prepared five years ago, but during the trial, he has not produced any such license. 8. Complainant in the cross-examination, at para-35, further admits that he has also advanced loan to various persons namely, Chandra Shekhar, Ramratan, Leeladhar, Sunita, Chitaiyya, Lakshman Ratre, Dhani Ram, Tumar Sidar, G.D Rao, Gopika, Yashwant, A. Dandashi, Rajesh, Johan, Uttam, Churaman, Abhay and Sohan Lal. He further admits that he has also preferred criminal cases for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the said persons but he could not state as to how much amount he has advanced to such persons and admits that from some persons at the time of advancing the loan a written instrument has been executed. The complainant further admits that on the complaint of one Rohit, a criminal case has been registered at Police Station- Nevai District-Bhilai (C.G) in a fraudulent manner that he has withdrawn money to the tune of Rs.2 lac and in the said case, the complainant stated that he has compromised with said Rohit. He further admits that Gori Shankar has also issued a legal notice to him that he had kept the cheque in his possession. In para-18, the complainant categorically admits that he has given loan to 25-30 persons but he has denied in para-19 that said loan was advanced for any money lending business and stated that he has given the money on a friendly terms. 9. In para-18, the complainant categorically admits that he has given loan to 25-30 persons but he has denied in para-19 that said loan was advanced for any money lending business and stated that he has given the money on a friendly terms. 9. The admission made by the complainant in his Court’s statement that he has given money on a friendly term is not believable, for the reason that the complainant in his cross-examination, at para-27, failed to explain as to in what manner he came into contact with the respondent/accused and develop the relationship. So, the transaction with so many persons clearly indicates that the transaction with the respondent/accused was not of a loan transaction, but it was a money lending transaction and the complainant/appellant is doing money lending business and failed to produce any license before the trial Court. Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 creates a bar for filling a civil suit without registration certificate and the said provision reads thus : “11-H. Suit not to proceed without registration certificate, etc.-No suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by a money-lender shall proceed in a civil court until the court is satisfied that he holds a valid registration certificate or that he is not required to have a registration certificate by reason of the fact that he does not carry on the business of money-lending in any of the district of [Chhattisgarh]: Provided that this section shall not apply to a suit instituted before the 1st October, 1940.” 10. Section 11-F of the said Act further bars to carry on business without registration certificate and contravention is an offence and the said provision reads thus : “11-F. Bar to carry on business without registration certificate.- (1) No person shall carry on the business of money-lending in any district unless he holds a valid registration certificate in respect of that district. [(2) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punishable with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees or if he has previously been convicted of an offence under that sub-section, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.]” 11. In view of the aforesaid legal provision, carrying on money lending business without license debars a person from doing money lending and recovering the amount through Court. In view of the aforesaid legal provision, carrying on money lending business without license debars a person from doing money lending and recovering the amount through Court. As per explanation to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, ‘Debt or other liability’ means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. So, a loan advanced by money lender who is doing business of money lending without license is not a debt or other liability and provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would not apply to such transaction. 12. However, in the instant case, the complainant has earlier also advanced loan to the respondent/accused vide Ex-P/7 to the tune of Rs.1 lac on 25.01.2011 and the respondent has categorically taken a defence that he has received loan to the tune of Rs.40,000/- only and complainant kept his passbook of the United Bank Branch-Sector 6 containing twenty leaflet of the cheques and loan has been advanced for interest to the tune of 20% per month and for the said loan of Rs.40,000/- he has paid interest Rs.8,000/-per month. He has already paid the said loan amount but the complainant has not returned the cheque book and passbook to him. Then, he has sent a legal notice vide Ex-D/2 to the complainant for returning the cheque book and passbook. 13. Considering the aforesaid evidence, it appears that the complainant is in habit of obtaining cheque as a security purpose and loan has been advanced in exorbitant interest rate to defeat the object of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. This Court does not find any merit or substance in the Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. 15. Let a copy of the this judgment be sent to the concerned trial Court for information.