Necessity of proving loan Transaction in money lending business
Further, it is clear from the perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 and the facts elicited in his cross-examination and the documents produced by the complainant himself that complainant is doing money lending business, the date on which the amount was lent to the respondent is not mentioned in the complaint or in the notice. It is only stated that the respondent availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the complainant in the month of March 1999. In the notice also the date of lending the amount to the respondent is not mentioned. Further, the appellant doing the money lending business, the money lending licence as per Ex. P. 3 has been produced and complainant cannot contend that money was lent without any document. The ledger extract or any letter sanctioning the loan amount or pronote to show sanction of the loan to the respondent is not produced. In fact material on record shows that though respondent has filed application, the same was rejected and even thereafter the complainant has not made any effort to produce the said documents and in the absence of proof of lending money to the respondent by the complainant as a financial agency, it is clear that the material on record would clearly rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act and once the presumption is rebutted, the complainant has to prove by independent evidence the fact that he has lent amount to the respondent and the cheque was issued for discharge of the said loan lent by the complainant to the respondent and the evidence of P.W. 1 is not helpful in the absence of production of day book ledger extract or any other document to show that the amount was lent to the respondent or proof of the date on which the amount was lent. Under the circumstances, the defence taken by the accused-respondent is probabilised
Karnataka High Court
M. Senguttuvan vs Mahadevaswamy on 12 March, 2007
Equivalent citations: ILR 2007 KAR 2709, 2007 (4) KarLJ 334
