IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4153 OF 2007 Satish Mallaya Keerti )..Applicant Versus Munugala Dayakar Ailappa & Anr. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Nitin Sejpal & Ms.Pooja Bhojne for the applicant. Mr.Suresh Dubey for respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Shitole APP for the respondent/State. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date :1st August, 2008. PC 1. This is an application for grant of leave to file appeal. The accused has been acquitted of an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. There is no dispute in this case that the amount was given to the accused in the year 1996. The loan appears to have been given under the agreement. The agreement itself shows that the two cheques were handed over in the year 1996 by way of security for repayment of the loan. The Complainant admitted in his evidence that when the cheques were given, only the amounts and signatures were put on the cheques and the dates were blank. Admittedly, dates were subsequently put by the Complainant in the year 2003. The written agreement did not provide for any particular period after which the : 2 : money would become due from the accused. It is obvious that in such circumstances, the loan was repayable on demand. It was open for the Complainant to demand the money at any time and to secure the said demand by putting the dates on the cheques. Advocate for the applicant placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Sawhney V/s. Gulshan Rai Anil Kumar Sawhney V/s. Gulshan Rai Anil Kumar Sawhney V/s. Gulshan Rai reported in 1993 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1243. The ratio in that case is not applicable to the facts of this case. Unlike the facts before the Apex Court in the present case, the cheque given was undated. It was given simultaneously with the agreement. In such a situation, it is obvious that the loan was repayable on demand. Such a loan would become time barred in the year 2003. It was sought to be argued that existence of loan was admitted in the 313 statement. That acknowledgment was not within the period of limitation. In my opinion, the view taken therefore, is a possible view. Hence, leave refused. Consequently appeal papers to be filed. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)