By Lakmal Sooriyagoda   

A judgement relating to a money lending case involving two sisters-in-law has been decided in favour of the borrower following a ten-year legal battle.   

Wattala Magistrate Dhammika Uduwawidana ordered to discharge the accused from the criminal charges relating to a money-lending incident after observing that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused.   

The complainant alleged that she lent a sum of Rs.475,000 to her sister-in-law by an agreement dated May 30, 2013. The Complainant alleged that the accused had given a cheque from a closed account. Accordingly, the accused sister-in-law was charged for criminal breach of trust under Section 389 of the Penal Code and Section 25(1) of the Debt Recovery Act No.1990.   
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. During the trial, the complainant was cross-examined by Senior Counsel Ian Fernando and admitted that she received a sum of Rs. 150,000 in lieu of this transaction. 
It was established during the cross-examination that she regularly lent money to her sister-in-law. The complainant said all the money she lent earlier was successfully handed back to her.   
During the cross-examination, defence counsel Fernando also established that the complainant has done several money lending transactions, although she is not a professional registered moneylender and that she did not keep proper books of accounts as a professional moneylender. Since she is a moneylender, she has not taken even a promissory note on this transaction, nor she has entered any entry in her personal diary and the interest she has charged for a month from the complainant was 5% per annum which contravenes with section 5 of the Money Lending Ordinance where the interest can’t exceed the principal.   
The complainant also accepted that the said cheques that bounced was filled by the accused and signed by the accused, she cannot say as she cannot vouch that the accused signed the cheque. 
It was further revealed during the cross-examination that whatever money that she received from the accused, she did not have receipts.   
The accused who gave evidence said that she had to pay nearly 10% of interest per month and she had money lending transactions only with the husband of the complainant and she had paid all money due to him and the said cheque was given only as security, a blank cheque with her signature over an understanding that the cheque will be forwarded to the bank only with the prior approval of the complainant wherein the cheque has been filled by someone else and presented to the bank without the accused’s knowledge.   

The accused mentioned to court that all monies were paid with interest and due to a dispute with the complainant and her family, they have deposited the cheques. The cheques bounced because she had changed the address and closed the account a long time before the cheques were presented to the bank. And therefore, Section 25(1) of the Debt Recovery Law cannot be applied because all monies were paid and there is no criminal breach of trust.   

Senior Counsel Ian Fernando with Counsel Sumudu Rathnayake appeared for the accused. Counsel Hilerion Fernando appeared for the aggrieved party.