-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43 OF 2010 The Bicholim Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., through its Branch Manager Shri Tushar Panandikar, aged 53 years, having office at Chase Chambers, Swatantrapath, Vasco da Gama, Goa. …... Appellants V e r s u s Mr. Ganta Balsubaiah, Major in age, South Western Railway Qtrs., Hospet, Karnataka. …... Respondent Ms. Ninotska Pimenta, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. J. P. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondent appointed under Legal Aid Scheme. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 9 th September, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Ms. Pimenta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, the learned Magistrate has essentially dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant on the ground that there was no legally recoverable debt payable by the Respondent as, according to the learned Magistrate, the claim was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant in the course of her submissions has relied upon the Judgments of this Court reported in 2009 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 3702 in the case of Deendayal Nagri Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit Co-operative Society vs. Shri Satyawan Nagesh Gaonkar. -2- 3. This Court in the case of Deendayal Nagari Sahakari Pathasanstha Maryadit Co-op Soceity vs. Shri Satyawan Nagesh Gaonkar (supra) held thus : “In my opinion, the period of limitation of three years ought to have been computed not from the first date when the loan was disbursed on 19.4.2002 but from the date of the last installment which was due and payable and that is 18.4.2005, for only that could have given a cause of action to the complainant to recover the amount lent to the accused. In the circumstances, therefore, the view held by the learned Magistrate that the period of limitation of three years had to be computed from the last date of the last installment which was payable and that is on or about 18.4.2005 and only that would have given the cause of action for the complainant to file a Civil Suit and that is within a period of three years therefrom. It is not the case of the accused that the complainant had recalled the loan earlier on account of failure of the accused to pay any of the installments.” 4. Considering the said Judgment passed by this Court, it appears that the findings of the learned Magistrate to the effect that the Appellant did not have legally recoverable debt from the Respondent cannot be sustained. The agreement dated 25.01.2001 shows that the amount of loan is repayable by 60 monthly installments of Rs.1,250/- which would end in January, 2006. But, however, the learned Counsel for the Respondent points out that the material available on record shows that the claim of the Appellants was time barred. However, no specific material was pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Respondent. -3- 5. Be that as it may, considering the Judgment passed by this Court, I find it appropriate that the impugned Judgment be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned J.M.F.C., Vasco, to decide the complaint filed by the Appellant afresh in accordance with law. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The impugned Judgment dated 26.10.2009 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned J.M.F.C. at Vasco, is directed to decide the criminal case no. 62/0A/NIA/08/A afresh in accordance with law. (iii) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (iv)In view of the disposal of the above appeal, Criminal Misc. Application does not survive as the Applicant is not required further in custody of this Court. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*