A cheque issued for a debt that is barred by the law of limitation cannot be enforced under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 does not apply in such cases.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition is filed by the accused under Sec. 397 read with Sec. 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No .3892/2008 dtd. 29/12/2011 and confirmed by the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.75/2012 dtd. 22/4/2013 .

2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is a businessman and accused is known to him and he used to get financial assistance from the complainant. It is further asserted that due to business needs, the accused has taken a hand loan of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 from the complainant in the year 2002 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum. It is also alleged that the accused failed to repay the loan amount as well as interest and ultimately the accused and complainant have arrived at a settlement on 7/12/2007 and accused agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8, 60, 000.00 for discharging all his debt of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 with interest thereon and issued a cheque for Rs.8, 60, 000.00 drawn on State Bank of India, Tyagarajanagara Branch, Bengaluru. When the said cheque was presented, it bounced for insufficiency o f funds and hence the complainant has issued a legal notice . The accused did not repay the said amount and hence the complaint came to be lodged under Sec. 200 of Cr .P.C., for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.I .Act' for short).

3. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. The accused has appeared through his counsel and was enlarged on bail. He denied the accusation under Sec. 138 of N.I .Act.

4. The complainant got examined himself as PW1 and a witness was examined on behalf of the complainant as PW2. He has also placed reliance on 6 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P6. After conclusion of the evidence of the complainant, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded to enable him to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the case of complainant. The case of the accused is of total denial. Further the accused has got examined himself as DW1 and he placed reliance on 22 documents marked at Exs.D1 to D22.

5. After hearing the arguments and after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned Magistrate has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of N.I .Act and imposed fine of Rs.10, 10, 000.00 with default clause o f 6 months simple imprisonment.

6. Being aggrieved by this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused has approached the Fast Track Court-IV, Bengaluru City in Crl.A.No.75/2012 and the learned Sessions Judge after re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court. Against these concurrent findings, this revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/accused.

7. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant and perused the records.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the allegations of the complaint disclose that the loan was advanced in the year 2002 and the matter was said to have been settled before the police in the year 2007. As such the transaction is barred by law of limitation. He would further assert that the documents produced by the accused would disclose that the accused has lodged number of complaints against the complainant for harassing him by doing money lending business and before the police, the complainant has admitted that he has received blank cheques from the accused and the complainant had no lending capacity to the tune of Rs.5, 00, 000.00 in the year 2002. He would contend that since the transaction itself is barred by law o f limitation,