Crl.L.P. 3/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (complai nant). Also heard Mr. P. Bora, the learned Counsel for the respondent (acquitted accused). 2. The complainant challenges the judgment dated 8.9.2010 in C.R. Case No. 22c /2008 rendered by the learned S.D.J.M (S), Dibrugarh, whereby the respondent s were acquitted of charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act ). 3. Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned Counsel for the complainant refers to the p rovisions of Section 118(1) and 139 of the N.I. Act to project that there is reb uttable presumption in favour of the holder of cheques that the same was issued in discharge of a bona fide debt. He points out that the accused did not rebut t his presumption and the learned Court erred in holding that the presumption is s uccessfully rebutted by the accused by wrongly attributing default against the c omplainant. 4. Mr. P. Bora, the learned Counsel submits that the complainant had issued 2 notices the first of which was received on 13.11.2007 and the second one on 1 7.12.2007 and the complaint was filed only on 1.2.2008. Accordingly the learned Counsel contends that the proceeding under the N.I. Act was barred by time, und er Section 142 of the N.I. Act. He wishes to urge other grounds also, in suppor t of the impugned judgment. 5. Considering the submission made and the rebuttable presumption incorpora ted under the N.I. Act, I feel that leave to Appeal should be granted to the com plainant and accordingly the same is allowed. 6. The case is disposed of with the above order.