Does the decision in Ramakrishnan v. Parthasaradhy (2003 (2) KLT 613) deserve reconsideration? This is the question raised in this revision petition, which is directed against a concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

2. The cheque is for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and bears the date 19.3.1999. Signature in the cheque is admitted. Handing over of the cheque is not disputed. The short relevant contention raised is that the cheque was issued not for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. The liability, which is claimed to be discharged, is one that was barred under the law of limitation of the date of the cheque. The complainant examined himself as PW1 and proved Exts.P1 to P6. The accused examined himself as DW1.

3. The court below concurrently came to the conclusion that all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act have been established and that the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing the defence urged by him. Accordingly they proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

4. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the petitioner wa