J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Pathak, the learned APP, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 1-State and Mr. Suren B. Patel, the learned counsel, waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No. 2.

2. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 6412 of 2015 filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot arising from a complaint filed under section 138 of the N.I. Act for the dishonour of the cheque.

3. Mr. Chandrani, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant invited my attention to the averments made in para-2 of the complaint. It appears that according to the averments made in the complaint, the applicant herein borrowed an amount of Rs. 16,50,000/- from the complainant as he wanted to purchase a parcel of land. This amount was borrowed by the applicant from the complainant way back on 3rd November, 2008. To discharge this liability, the cheque in question dated 14th May, 2015 was drawn by the applicant in favour of the complainant, which came to be dishonoured on account of the funds insufficient.

4. Mr. Chandrani would submit that on the face of the record, the debt, being time barred, the same is not enforceable and, therefore, the complaint under section 138 of the N.I. Act should fail.

5. In support of his submission, strong reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of J. Chitranjan And Company Proprietor - C.D. Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2017 (1) GCD 390. Mr. Chandrani relied on the observations made in paras-16.3 and 17.1 and 17.2, which reads as under;

"16.3 The complainant had produced computerized one page statement of account for the year 1993-94. The accounting commenced either from 1.4.1983 or 1.4.1986 as deposed by PW-1 - the complainant, and ended on 1.2.1994 i.e. the date of issuance of the cheque. No evidence as to how the amount due was carried forward from year to year between the disputed period, was adduced. The question, however, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is whether one page so-called statement of accounts that too, for the year 1993-94 only would constitute books of account. Reliance is placed upon Hiralal v. Badkulal, AIR 1953 SC 225 and Chandradhar Goswami v. Gauhati Bank, AIR 1967 SC 1058. In Chandradhar Goswami (supra) after referring to section 34 of the Evidence Act, it was held that no person can be charged with liability merely on the basis of the entries in books of account, even where such books of accounts are kept in regular course of business. It was further held that there has to be further evidence to prove payment of the money which may appear in the books of account in order that a person may be charged with liability thereunder. PW-1 in Criminal Revision Application No. 231 of 2009, namely, Anil G. Shah, inter alia, deposed that his father gave him cash of Rs. 6 lakh for being handed over to Shri C.D. Shah who was present in his house, as loan at the agreed rate of interest of 15% per annum which interest if not paid, was agreed to be accumulated in the accounts on 1.4.1983. In his further examination in chief, however, he said that the said amount was handed over to accused Shri C.D. Shah on 1.4.1986 and entry thereof was made in the books of account which was being maintained by his father G.L. Shah. He produced true copies of the computerized entries for the years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Admittedly, as is evident from his cross-examination the accounts for the period between 1986 and 1990 were not computerized and computerization was done since 1990. The witness also pleaded ignorance as to whether he was instructed by his father with regard to accounts at the time of lodging of the complaint. He deposed that the entries were recorded by his accounta