1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4721 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 M/s. Premier Enclave Pvt. Ltd. ...Applicant. v/s. State and Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. S.V.Vora ,adv. For the Applicant. Smt.V.R.Bhosale, APP For the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 9, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, who is original complainant. Complainant had allegedly advanced loan of Rs.2 lac to the respondent/accused on 31.3.2003 and had obtained a cheque from the accused. As the amount was not paid within time, on 30.9.2006 original date was changed and the cheque was revalidated. After that cheque was presented for encashment but it was returned for want of sufficient funds. Notice was issued to the accused. In the reply to the notice, he had contended that he had already repaid an amount of Rs.2 lac out of which Rs.25,000/- was towards the interest and thus, he had paid an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- and only Rs.25,000/- was balance. After that the 2 complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Witness for the complainant denied that any amount was paid by the accused. The trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that on the date of re-valuation, it was time barred loan and, therefore, case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not tenable. Explanation to Section 138 clearly provides that debt or other liability means legally enforceable debt or other liability. Even if the contentions of the plaintiff are believed to be true, without taking into consideration the defence, it appears that loan was advanced on 31.3.2003 and on the same day, cheque was obtained from the accused. The period of limitation would begin to run immediately and the loan could be recovered under law within 3 years i.e., upto 31.3.2006. Cheque was revalidated on 30.9.2006 when the loan was already barred by the limitation and thus, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. 2 In view of the above, I find no substance in the present application for leave to prefer appeal against acquittal. 3 The application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)