THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL. APPEAL No. 323 of2006. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed against the Judgement dt. 11.11.2005 in C.C.No. 412 of 2001 on the file of the learned II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate acquitted the accused/1st respondent of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case of the appellant/complainant is that he supplied scrap material to the accused/1st respondent worth Rs. 3,60,688/- and that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.4.2000 drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Begumbazar branch, Hyderabad vide Cheque No. 395409 and that the appellant presented the said cheque for collection with his banker on 12.7.2000 and the same was returned stating ‘Account closed’ and then the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused demanding to pay the amount covered by the cheque and that accused having received the notice got issued reply notice denying the allegations. Hence the complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C praying to punish the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Before the trial court, the complaint himself is examined as Pw.1 and Exs: P.1 to P.15 are marked. The accused himself is examined as DW.1. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act by the Judgement dt. 11.11.2001. Aggrieved by the said Judgement, the de facto complainant filed the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant supplied scrap material to the 1st respondent/accused worth Rs. 3,60,688/- and that the 1st respondent/accused issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- on 20.4.2000 after settlement with the appellant and that when the appellant present the said cheque in his banker for realisation, the same was returned stating ‘Account Closed’ and that since the 1st respondent issued the cheque in question in favour of the appellant, presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act has to be drawn in favour of the appellant and therefore the 1st respondent is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. He further submits that the court below is not justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim is time barred and that the court below also erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove the case against the 1st respondent and as such he seeks to set aside impugned Judgement and prays to punish the 1st respondent for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that Ex:P.1 cheque dt. 20.4.2000 is self drawn cheque by the respondent/accused himself and it (Ex:P.1) contains the signature of the accused on front and back side and therefore it was not issued to the appellant towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. He further submits that the word ‘self’ on Ex:P.1 was struck off and “Sri Balaji Ispath” was typed, which shows that Ex:P.1 was meddled with. He further contends that since Pw.1 (Appellant) admitted in his cross-examination that Ex:P.1 was issued towards discharge of payment due under Exs:P3 to P.9, the credit bills given to one Aslam Enterprises, Afzalgunj, Hyderabad and not to the accused, the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint holding that the cheque Ex:P.1 was not issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt. He further contends that Exs: P.3 to P.9 were issued on various dates in the year 1996 whereas Ex:P.1 was issued in the year 2000 and therefore Ex:P.1 issued for the discharge of payment due under Exs:P.3 to P.9 is time barred and the trial court rightly dismissed the complaint hold that the debt is time barred. He further submitted that Pw.1 in his cross- examination admitted that except the payment under Ex:P.3 to P.9, the accused is not liable to pay any amount to him and since the debt under Exs:P.3 to P.9 is time barred, the court below rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no need to interfere with the Judgment of the trial court in this appeal. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/Accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and also the material available on record. The main case of the appellant is that the accused issued Ex: P.1 cheque to discharge the legally enforceable debt covered by Exs:P.3 to P.9. The trial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the debt under Exs:P.3 to P.9 is time barred and consequently acquitted the accused. I have perused the evidence of Pw.1. Pw.1 in his cross-examination admitted that except the payment covered by Exs:P.3 to P.9, the accused is not liable to pay any amount to him. Since the payment under Exs:P.3 to P.9, as rightly recorded by the trial court, is time barred, the accused cannot be held liable for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act. The trial Court considering all the material brought on record and also properly appreciating oral evidence, rightly dismissed the complaint. This court discerns no illegality or perversity in appreciating the evidence by the trial court while coming to the conclusion warranting interference in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. _____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 23.06.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRL. APPEAL No. 323 of2006. DT. 23.06.2010.