1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3384 OF 2009 Devgiri Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Aurangabad Branch Railway Station, Through Authorised Officer Manoj J. Pasare. Applicant V E R S U S Sangita w/o Raghunath Gaikwad Respondent. Shri A. R. Borulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Manjusha Nayan Advocate for respondent sole – absent. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 9 th JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Borulkar, learned counsel for the applicant. Mrs. Nayan learned counsel for the sole respondent – absent. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant (original complainant), seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.2.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class 7 th Court, Aurangabad in SCC No.4742/2007. 3. I have perused impugned judgment and order of acquittal 2 dated 13.2.2009 with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicant. 4. In short, it is the case of the complainant that, Complainant is a registered Co-operative Credit Society, which advanced loan to the respondent on 5.4.2001 and respondent/accused executed documents and agreement therefor and agreed to repay the said loan within the period of two years i.e. on or before 5.4.2003. It is also alleged that accused issued cheque of Rs.55,344/- on 27.4.2007 towards repayment of the said loan. Said cheque was presented for encashment, however, it was dishonoured and returned unpaid. Hence, the complainant sent legal notice to the accused and made demand of the cheque amount and same was served upon the accused by UPC. However, accused did not comply with the requisition contained in the said notice. Hence, after observing necessary formalities, the complainant filed present complaint. 5. Accused appeared therein and contested the same. After scrutinizing the evidence adduced and produced by the parties, learned trial judge acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, complainant has preferred present application seeking leave to file appeal against the same. 3 7. Apparently, the complainant advanced loan to the accused on 5.4.2001 and cheque in question came to be issued on 27.04.2007 i.e. after lapse of about six years and therefore learned trial judge has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that the complainant is not at all entitled for recovery of the time barred debt and thus he cannot enforce the penal liability against the accused on account of time barred debt. Consequently, learned trial judge also observed that the complainant has miserably failed to establish the fact that cheque in question was legally enforceable debt since it being the time barred debt. 8. Reasoning adopted by the learned trial judge, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence appears to be sound and same cannot be faulted with and same does not appear to be perverse. Hence, no interference therein is called for. 9. In the result, present application being sans merit, stands dismissed and consequently leave to file appeal stands refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/3384.09