Sns 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5267 OF 2009 Yogiraj A. Kulkarni ..Applicant. v/s. Mangesh S. Mhatre and Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. J.N.Shiradhonkar i/by Manoj M. Kondekar, advs. for the Applicant. Mr. Kamlesh M. Singh, adv. for the respondent no.1. Smt. G.P.Mulekar, APP for the State. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 4th October, 2011 PC : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record. 2 The original complainant seeks leave to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As per his complaint and the admission before the trial Court, the complainant had advanced an amount of Rs.70,000/- to the accused/respondent in the year 1997-1998. Cheque dated 31.12.2002 was issued by the accused for the repayment of that amount. Cheque was dishonoured and thereafter, the complaint was filed. The trial Court held that the alleged debt was barred by the limitation and, therefore, there was no legally enfoceable liability or debt when the cheque was issued. In fact, the complainant had not given date on which the loan was advanced by him. Assuming that the loan was advanced by him on the last date of financial Sns 2 year 1997-1998, limitation period would come to an end on 31st March, 2001. Cheque was issued sometimes in November, 2002. The date of the cheque was 31.12.2002. Thus, when the cheque was issued , the loan had become time barred and, therefore, it was not legally enforceable debt or liability. In view of this legal position, I find no fault with the order passed by the trial Court. 3 In the result, leave to prefer appeal refused and the application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA, J.)