..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2585 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 M/s.Shyam Wines. ..Applicant. Versus Sudhakar Shetty and Anr. ..Respondents. .... Ms.Prabha Badadare, Adv. i/b. Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar, Adv. for the Applicant. Mr.Vinayak Y. Kutti, Adv.i/b. SV Marwadi, Adv. for respondent No.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. DATED : 29th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-orig.complainant has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th May, 2007 passed by the learned JMFC, Ulhasnagar in SCC No.1457 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent-orig. accused of the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act. 2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-Orig.complainant. Perused the judgment ..(2).. and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the evidence which has been annexed. 3. The learned Magistrate held that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability,and on that ground acquitted the respondent-accused. The case of the complainant is that there was outstanding which was borrowed from him by the accused. The said outstanding is in between 1998 to 12.6.1999. If one takes that period into consideration, the period of limitation would expire on 11.6.2002. As the last outstanding date is 12.6.1999 therefore three years period of limitation would expire on 11.6.2002. The cheque in question is dated 9.3.2005 that means the cheque is issued after expiry of period of three years i.e. beyond limitation. In such case the learned Magistrate has rightly held that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. 4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that after the expiry of the period of limitation, the parties had entered into an settlement and cheque was issued pursuant to the ..(3).. said settlement. It is pertinent to note that the averment of the complainant that there was a settlement is not backed by any documentary evidence. According to the complainant it was only an oral agreement. Nothing has been brought on record that there was any settlement arrived at between the parties. The cheque in question is in respect of time barred debt. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the reasoning of the learned Magistrate that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability. 5. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate is reasonable and possible. Hence no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)