yiGH_COURTW^HHATI!§GARHAT_BlLASPUR CnmJnai^.P. N0.107^2008 Petitsoner • Puran Slngh S/o-Kuwar Singh Usare, aged about 49 years, R/o.-Viiiage-Bharritola, Tehsii-iVianpur Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Respondent Versus Tribhuvandas Patel S/o.-Manji Bhai Patel Aged about 38 years,R/o." G.E. road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) PETmON UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRSMJNAL PROCEDURE (S8: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Present: Shri Utkarsh Verma, counsel for the petltioner. Smt. Purnima Singh, counsd forthe rsspondent. Orai Order (Passed on 27th June, 2008) Heard on IA. No. 02/2008 for condonation of deiay in payment of process fee for issuance of notice through registered post Learned counsel for the petltioner submits that the respondent has aiready made his appearance through his counsel, therefore, there is no need to pay process on this count. Accordingly, i.A. No. 02/2008 is unrsecessary and the same Is rejected. 2. This petition is directed againstthe order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the First Additionai Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon Jn Criminal Revision No. 58/2007, affirming the order dated 6.7.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon in CrimJnal Complaint Case No. 602/2006 whereby the Searned Judiclal Magistrate First Ciass has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sectlon 138 ofthe Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, 'the Act, 1881') 3, The order is chailenged on the ground that the respondent has fiJed a complaint after lapse of 6 years from the alleged transaction. Obiigation to discharge the liabliity or debt as envisage under section 138 of the Act, 1881 is reiating to only iegally enforceabie iiability. According to compiaint itseif, the petitioner had issued cheque on 24.12.2003 relating to transaction for the period 27.1.97 to 7,6.1997. The aileged cheque is for ^- B/- dlscharge of time barred liability and the same is not legaliy enforceabie debt or other Jiability in accordance with section 138 ofthe Act, 1881 4. On the other hand, order is supported on behaif of the respondent. 5. According to copy of compiaint, complainant/respondent had paid Rs. 1,30,000/- between 27.1.97 to 7.6.1997 for suppiy of wood to the petitloner. Then afterwards cheque dated 24.12.2003 wasissued by the applicant to discharge the I'iabSiity. Cheque was presented to the bank but the same was dishonored. After dishonoring the cheque, complaint under section 138 read with section 142 of the Act, 1881 has been filed by the respondent. According to complaint, the petitloner had issued a cheque on 24.12.2003 for discharge of iiabllity arose on the basis of contract, No specific time was fixed for enforcement of contract. In absence of any time llmit, cheque jssued by the appllcant for discharge of liabllity based on contract, cannot be termed as Jiability not legaiiy enforceabie. It appears from the record that the petltioner has failed to perform his part of contract, then he issued a cheque in dispute. 6. The triai court as well as the revisionaS court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. I do not fmd any substance in the petition. Accordingiy, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge