( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment in Criminal appeal No. 154 of 1997 dated 7-8-1998 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, hyderabad under which the learned Sessions judge confirmed the conviction and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/- imposed against the appellant-accused for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act by the learned XV Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad in C. C. No. 558 of 1994 dated 12-3-1 997.

( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present revision may briefly be stated as under. On 11-7-1987, the appellant-accused received an amount of Rs. 22,000/- from the complainant with a promise that he would get a plot for the complainant. Thereafter, the appellant- accused neither gave the plot as promised by him nor returned the amount of rs. 22,000/- to the complainant. Subsequently, on several demands made by the complainant, the appellant-accused issued a cheque dated 25-8-1994 for Rs. 25. 000/ -. When the said cheque was presented before the concerned bank for realization, it was dishonoured five times for want of sufficient funds. Therefore, the complainant got issued a statutory notice to the appellant- accused calling upon him to pay the amount, but the appellant-accused failed to pay the amount covered by the cheque. Hence, the complaint was filed against the appellant - accused for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 3 ) DURING the course of trial, the complainant himself was examined as PW. 1 and got marked Exs. Pl to Ex. P6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant-accused.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court upon consideration of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the complainant has established that Ex. P3 cheque was issued by the appellant-accused in discharge of the liability covered under Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 and thereby found him guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the accused preferred appeal before the sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 1997. The learned IV Additional Sessions judge by his judgment dated 7-8-1999 dismissed the appeal filed by the accused confirming the conviction and sentenced recorded by the XV Metropolitan Magistrate against the appellant-accused. As against the said dismissal, the present revision has been filed before this Court by the accused questioning the legality and correctness thereof.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-accused contended that the cheque was not issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and that the two receipts i. e. , Ex. Pl and Ex. P2 were issued by the accused in the name of the complainant in the year 1987 and that the last receipt i. e. , Ex. P2 dated 11-7-1987 was given in the name of the daughter of the complainant, but she is not examined as a witness in this case, and that since the cheque was issued on 25-8-1994, the claim of the complainant is barred by limitation. It is further contended that there was no cause of action for the complainant to recover the amount through the process of the Court and that the time-barred debt cannot be recovered. Therefore, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by the learned xv Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant contended that the accused gave a cheque towards discharge of the legally enforceable debt on 2-4-1 990 and therefore, it amounts to an acknowledgment and no plea has been taken by the accused b