Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 443 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - security cheque or not - acquittal of accused - holder of cheque on the date of presentation viz. 31.12.2004. Security cheque or not? - Whether the learned Magistrate committed error in recording finding that the complainant was having custody of the cheque on the date when the transaction was entered upon between the parties? - HELD THAT:- On evaluation of the cross-examination of the complainant, it has come on record that the date, amount and name in disputed cheque was entered by the accused. Such admission of part of complainant indicate the date “31.12.2004” being entered by accused - Even otherwise, if one looks at provisions of Section 138(a) of the Act, it prescribes the date inscribed on cheque as the date on which cheque was drawn. The same is provided for the purpose of determining validity of the cheque. However, the fact remains that the issuance of cheque in light of the aforesaid provisions shows as “31.12.2004”. Period of limitation - Whether the complainant be treated as “holder of cheque” on the date of presentation viz. 31.12.2004, to attract the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, at no stage, evidence has been adduced by the complainant to show that within the prescribed period of limitation, the debt was acknowledged by the accused in writing, which is required under Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act. The period of limitation of three years is to be computed as provided under Article 19 of the Limitation Act, which provides for the money payable within three years from the date of loan. The date on which loan was advanced, makes the present transaction time barred as on 31.12.2004. Admittedly, the date of loan as emerged on record is 15.12.1998 and by applying the prescribed period of three years, as per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, would come to an end on 15.12.2001, whereas the disputed cheque bears the date 31.12.2004. In absence of any document being brought on record by the complainant that the debt was acknowledged during the prescribed period of limitation, the cheque was time barred. In light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasseriyil Joseph [2001 (9) TMI 1177 - SC ORDER], the same cannot be treated “as legally enforceable debt” or other “liability” as appeared in the Explanation attached to Section 138 of the N.I. Act.” The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and hence, the same stands dismissed.
|