IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.290, 324 & 329 of 2008 DATE:31.01.2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.290 of 2008 Between: T @ B.Sathya Kumari …… Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.324 of 2008 Between: T @ B.Sathya Kumari …… Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.329 of 2008 Between: T @ B.Sathya Kumari …… Appellant And State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Public Prosecutor and another …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.290, 324 & 329 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These three appeals raise common question of law based on similar facts. 2) Unfortunate complainant who lost her cases filed alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the Act) against the 2nd respondent/accused were acquitted by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad by judgments dated 20.09.2007 in C.C. Nos.502 of 2005, 660 of 2005 and 500 of 2005. The lower Court acquitted the accused in all the cases on the ground that the debts towards discharge of which the cheques were issued in favour of the complainant were barred by limitation by the date of the respective cheques. There is no dispute about dishonour of three cheques in question which were issued by the respective accused for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. 3) Placing reliance on Rangappa V. Mohan[1], K.N.Beena V. Muniyappan[2], of the Supreme Court, N.Narsingarao V. Srinivasachary[3] of this Court and Y.Sreelatha @ Roja V. Mukanchand Bothra[4] of Madras High Court, it is contended by the appellant’s counsel that when once drawing of cheques by the respective accused in favour of the complainant is admitted, presumption as to existence of legally enforceable debt or liability arises under Section 139 of the Act and that it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption. It is further contended by the appellant’s counsel that in cross-examination of the complainant as P.W-1, the defence counsel suggested that the respective debts were discharged by the accused. It is therefore contended that when the debt is admitted and when discharge of the debt is not proved, the lower Court should have taken existence of a debt or liability as the basis for drawing of the dishonoured cheques in question. 4) The lower Court acquitted the accused in all the three cases on the ground that by the respective dates of drawing of the cheques by the accused in favour of the complainant, the debts were time barred. In Criminal Appeal No.324 of 2008, Ex.P-1 cheque was drawn on 09.03.2005 for discharge of debt covered by Ex.P-3 dated 07.08.2001. In Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2008, Ex.P-1 cheque dated 10.03.2005 was drawn for discharge of debt covered by Ex.P-3 dated 07.08.2001. In Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2008, Ex.P-1 cheque dated 07.03.2005 was drawn for discharge of debt covered by Ex.P-3 dated 22.09.2000. Even if the debts covered by Ex.P-3 in all the three cases are taken for granted, those debts ceased to be enforceable by expiry of three years period from the respective dates i.e., by 07.08.2004, 07.08.2004 and 22.09.2003. But, the cheques were drawn in the year 2005 long after the debts became enforceable muchless legally enforceable. In the absence of a legally enforceable debt, even if a cheque drawn by the accused was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, it would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Therefore, the lower Court rightly acquitted the accused in these three matters on the ground that there were no legally enforceable debts in respect of which the dishonoured cheques were issued in these cases. 5) In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 31, 2011 ksh [1] AIR 2010 Supreme Court 1898 [2] 2001 Crl.L.J 4745 [3] 2010 LAP 372 [4] 2003 Crl.L.J.1938