1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2201 OF 2008 Mugut Trimbak Dhamal ..Applicant V/s. Indrasen Eknath Chavan & anr. ..Respondents Ashok Bhatia i/b.Mr.Jayant Pol, Advocate, for applicant Ms.A.A.Mane, A.P.P, for the State CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. . Heard. 2. From the record it is apparent that an alleged loan was advanced to the accused in the year 2001 and the accused had executed two loan agreements dated 26th June, 2001 and 15th September, 2001 which are at Exhs.P.3 and P.4. The time which was agreed upon for repayment was on or before 31st May, 2002 and 14th August, 2002. Even if the claim of the complainant is accepted, the period for prosecuting the relief starts after 31st May, 2002 2 and 14th August, 2002. Obviously, the cheque in question for Rs.3,50,000/- is dated 20th March, 2007. There was no agreement between the parties to pay time-barred debt as contemplated under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act. There was obviously no extension of time limit as required under the Statute. Reliance placed on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Yeshwant Badeve v. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakasr and another, reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1099 is in relation to issuance of post dated cheque for which there cannot be any quarrel on the legal propositions. 3. The learned counsel for applicant then relied on the Judgment of this Court in the matter of Purushottam s/o.Maniklal Gandhi Vs. Manohar K. Deshmukh & anr., reported in 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 332. In the said case, there were agreements between the parties to pay the debt and the said aspect was not considered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, while acquitting the accused. Then the matter went before the High Court and consequently, 3 the learned Judge allowed the appeal and the Order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No.2, Nagpur of acquitting the said accused was reversed. Article 21 of the Limitation Act, prescribes the limitation for filing suit for recovery of money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand and the period of limitation is three years and the period of limitation begins to run when the loan is made. As on the date of presentation of cheque, in the Bank or the date having referred in the cheque as 20th March, 2007, there was obviously no enforceable liability as against the accused/respondent as required under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The findings led by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in acquitting the accused cannot be therefore interferred. Hence, application for leave to appeal is rejected. (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)