TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 117716 dated 28.6.2003 for Rs. 95,000/- in favour of the complainant drawn on her saving bank account No. 1694 being maintained with Capital Local Area Bank Limited, Jalandhar Road Kapurthala. The said cheque on being presented by the complainant through her bankers i.e. Central Bank, Kapurthala was dishonored and received back with memo dated 28.6.2003 issued by the bankers of the accused bearing remarks Insufficient Funds . Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and informed her about the fact that the cheque has been bounced and demanded the amount of cheque, but she refused to pay the same. Notice dated 9.7.2003 was issued by the complainant calling upon the accu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with due care and circumspection. 6. As pleaded in the grounds of appeal, that although the appellant led sufficient evidence to prove her case, but the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the recovery of amount could have been made by the appellant within a period of three years. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record and simply dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. The learned trial Court has held that the time barred debt is not covered under this provision, since liability has not been acknowledged within a period of limitation by the respondent. Therefore, it does not amount to acknowledgment on her part. The learned trial Court did not appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der :- The ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent is applicable on all fours. In that case loan was advanced in the year 1985 and the cheque was issued in the year 1990. By the time the cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was obtained before the expiry of 3 years from the date of loan. In these circumstances, it was held there that the debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque and the accused could not be punished under section 138 of the said Act. In the light of Explanation to the said section, it was further held therein that in case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, the accused cannot be conv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
