The acknowledgment of a debt through a dishonored cheque is not valid under Section 18 of the Limitation Act if the cheque is issued after the debt has become time-barred.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala whereby he dismissed the complaint and acquitted Vanita accused of the charge framed against her.

2. The facts in brief are that the accused Vanita secured loan to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- from the complainant Manjit Kaur for household management, but she failed to repay the same despite repeated requests made by the latter. In order to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 117716 dated 28.6.2003 for Rs. 95,000/-in favour of the complainant drawn on her saving bank account No. 1694 being maintained with Capital Local Area Bank Limited, Jalandhar Road Kapurthala. The said cheque on being presented by the complainant through her bankers i.e. Central Bank, Kapurthala was dishonored and received back with memo dated 28.6.2003 issued by the bankers of the accused bearing remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and informed her about the fact that the cheque has been bounced and demanded the amount of cheque, but she refused to pay the same. Notice dated 9.7.2003 was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make the payment of the said amount. Such notice has been received by the accused, but nonetheless she did not pay the said amount. Sequelly, the complaint was lodged on 30.7.2003 in the Court.

3. After appearance of the accused, the complainant examined Sanjiv Kumar Bhagi, Executive Capital Bank, Kapurthala P.W.2 in addition to her own statement as P.W. 1. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against her and put forth as under :-

"Yes. The cheque has been forged by the complainant which was never filled by me, nor given to the complainant. In fact complainant obtained this cheque from one Mr. Toni to whom I had given this blank cheque in connection with some loan transaction duly signed by me. The complainant used the said cheque in connivance with Toni and in connivance with other person. I am innocent."

4. She did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with her acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant - Manjit Kaur.

5. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the parties despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have perused the record with due care and circumspection.

6. As pleaded in the grounds of appeal, that although the appellant led sufficient evidence to prove her case, but the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the recovery of amount could have been made by the appellant within a period of three years. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record and simply dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. The learned trial Court has held that the time barred debt is not covered under this provision, since liability has not been acknowledged within a period of limitation by the respondent. Therefore, it does not amount to acknowledgment on her part. The learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that the cheque was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondent has not denied that the cheque was not issued by her to the appellant.

7. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these grounds taken up in the appeal.

8. Manjit Kaur - appellant as P.W. 1 has testified that "I know the accused present in Court. Accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 95,000/- from