if% ‘lIE 111011 (‘0!. R’ (P’ k%R\7 K\ (‘IR(’L. II BEit II ‘U D1IAR \D 1)VIFI) TillS TifF I DW 0FOflO1JFR 20 BEFORI’ 1 HE HON’I3LK MR. JIJST((’E ANAND 13’ R4R1tDD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.715 OF 2006 131 11l\ Shiw \1 at C. n-op C teda Snt.iei> lid. Sha’tt i \ wai \e (oodshed Road. Ilelnaun Rep b its \sisIant Sn \rni Rarnhandra kadarn. aed al out 19 ‘ears. Ocr Senke .\PPI I I Vs I (Sti R irn tehandia kIi doeate1 ‘\I) silas S o Shankax Iane \s’e I ‘ibi Ut 1a;o:. (kc. l3usiness Ro II\’,6 Ia rni\urai Ilin lala...a 1kb turn . RI SP() 1)1 \ I Si P 1 UN t\ R cI a I inrniijjei ikin IS S(P( .1 %Id%. Ii. id flint I tu tHaI d c 0(1 Nh ii (C 6 015 ithchtth RI(Il( 13...iin it t sj I ‘i acu fir i, hI I. S Si h\i t (,i i ‘j I i ‘i . a 2 JUDGMENT I leard the learned coLinsel 11w the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent remains absent. 2. The facts briefly stated are as follows: The present appellant ‘vas the complainant before the Court below alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was contested. The Trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the linding that the cheque in question had been issued in discharge of a loan made in favour of the respondent, as of the year 1998, whereas the cheque has been issued in the year 2004 and the court below has held that in the absence of an acknowledgement of debt between the period 1998 and 2004, the loan. if any. was not a legally recoverable debt as a suit Ibr recovery of the same ould he barred by time and therelOre, has held the cheque issued was not in discharge of a legally I recoverable debt and therefore, has proceeded to dismiss the complaint. 3. The primary reasoning of the Court below is apparently Ilawed. The question ol limitation in so lhr as a possible suit of recover) even if releant. could not have been applied in the face of a cheque having been issued by the respondent. The issuance of a cheque. by itself as sufficient acknowledgement of the debt and even if there as a bar of limitation, a borrower is not prevented from repaying the amount which may be due under the known transaction. In the present ease on hand. the issuance of cheque is as good as payment being made and therefore, an acknowledgement of the debt and the same could not have been negated on the ground that there was no independent acknowledgement of the debt. The reasoning of the Trial Court in this regard is thereibre, perverse and not tenable. I’ 4 In the result, since that is the only point on which the complaint has been dismissed, the complainant ‘ould succeed and accordingl>, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment of the l’rial Court is set-aside. liie respondent is thund guilty of having committed an oflence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act in terms of Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure and accordingly, he is sentenced to pay a fine in a sum of Rs.OO.000 - of which Rs.56,000/- shall be paid as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of’ the appellant and the remaining shall he appropriated by the State as tine. In the event the respondent Ihils to pay the amount of line within a period of four weeks from today. the respondent shall suffer simple imprisonment of six months. Sd/ JUDGE I KS