JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

Appellant - Babu Khan, has filed present appeal, challenging the judgement of conviction dated 18.10.2012, and order of sentence dated 19.10.2012, passed by the Court of Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ambala (Appellate Court), whereby, the appellant has been convicted for committing an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'NI Act').

2. Cheque No. 630994, dated 18.05.2004, amounting to Rs.96,660/- was issued by the appellant (accused) payable at Punjab National Bank, Mullana, but the same got bounced and vide memos of the Bank (Ex.P2, P3 & P4), bouncing of the cheque was informed to the respondent. After issuance of legal notice (Ex.P5), respondent (complainant) filed Criminal Complaint No. 844/2, dated 17.07.2004/28.09.2008, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala Cantt. (in short 'Ld. Trial Court').

3. Ld. Trial Court acquitted the accused (appellant herein) by recording its findings in paragraphs Nos. 14, 16 & 17 of its judgement dated 24.09.2010. Para Nos. 14, 16 & 17 of the said judgement says as under:-

"14. Further, the loan was advanced on 24.4.2000 and at the time of advancement of loan, it was agreed that regular monthly installments of Rs.3700/- including interest shall be paid in 24 installments. As per the version of the complainant in Para 24 of the complaint, a payment of Rs.2000/- was received by him from the accused on 3.4.2001 and thereafter on 14.5.2004, the accused made a payment of Rs. 17,000/- as well as issued the cheque in question as final settlement of the loan. Admittedly, the last payment was made on 3.4.2001 and thereafter for a period of three years i.e. up to 3.4.2004 no payment was made by the accused and admittedly, a payment of Rs. 17,000/- was made to the complainant by the accused on 14.5.2004 i.e. after a period of three years. However, on the said date i.e. On 14.5.2004, the liability of discharging the debt had become time barred. As per the complainant, the amount of Rs.2000/- was also paid by the accused on 3.4.2001. Thus, the debt was payable up to 3.4.2004. As such, the payment of Rs. 17,000/- and the cheque in question dated 18.5.2004 was issued by the accused when the debt liability had become time barred. In these circumstances, after the expiry of three years the debt has become time barred. Further, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused ever acknowledged the existence of liability, thus extending the period of limitation. In these circumstances, the present complaint is barred by limitation.

xxx xx xxx xx

xxx xx xxx xx

16. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the accused vide his separate statement dated 10.11.2008 has entered into a compromise and agreed to pay the cheque amount of Rs.96660/- by way of monthly installment of Rs. 1000/-. This, the accused has admitted his liability and now nothing remains to be proved against him for commission of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Statement dated 10.11.2008 perused. The said statement is a joint statement of complainant and accused and vide said statement, the accused has no where admitted the existence of liability. Thus, the said statement can not be used against the accused. Moreover, the said statement was never put by the complainant to the accused in his evidence. Thus, the aforesaid contention of complainant is devoid of any merit.

17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the case of the complainant. Thus, accused has rebutted the presumption available to the comp