Back
2019 Supreme(MP) 342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Ramkumar Kushwaha v. Pooran Singh
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 17245 of 2018 (G);
Decided on 26.8.2019
Advocate Appeared:
Abhishek Bindal for petitioner Rajmani Bansal for respondent.
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -- Ss. 138, 139 and 118 -- Limitation Act, 1963 -- Ss. 18 and 19 -- dishonour of cheque -- given for repayment of loan -- petitioner/accused acknowledged debt -- period of limitation shall be computed from date of Cheque and not form date of taking loan -- presumption is in favour of holder of cheque -- trial Court rightly took cognizance of complaint -- no interference called for. 2016 (III) MPWN 39 (SC) (2002) 2 SCC 642 and 2015 Cr.LJ 2408 followed. [Para 6
ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e] 1881 & /kkjk 138] 139 rFkk 118 & ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 18 rFkk 19 & pSd dk vuknj.k & _.k ds izfrlank; ds fy, fn;k x;k & ;kph@vfHk;qä us _.k vfHkLohdkj fd;k & ifjlhek dh vof/k dh x.kuk pSd ds fnukad ls dh tk,xh _.k ysus ds fnukad ls ugha & mièkkj.k pSd ds /kkjd ds i{k esa gS & fopkj.k U;k;ky; us ifjokn dk laKku Bhd gh fy;k & gLr{ksi vko';d ughaA 2016 ¼3½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 39 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2002½ 2 ,l lh lh 642 rFkk 2015 lh vkj ,y ts 2408 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6
ORDER
1. With consent, heard finally.
2. The petition under section 482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 21.2.2018 passed by IV Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Criminal Revision No. 50/17 as well as order dated 20.3.2017 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morena in Criminal Case No. 524/2016 and all subsequent proceedings thereto.
3. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent/ complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as "NI Act") on account that loan taken by the respondent on 12.5.2005 has not been returned and towards repayment, cheque dated 28.1.2014 of amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been issued but the cheque got dishonoured therefore, complaint has been filed before the trial Court under section 138 of NI Act. Petitioner/accused filed a complaint under sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on the ground that transaction took place on 12.5.2005 and the cheque is of dated 28.1.2014 as per the pleadings of the complaint itself. Therefore, as per section 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act if in due custody then the case should be filed within three years and if the case is filed after three years then no amount can be recovered from the accused, therefore, complaint is bared by time. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar v. Punjab National Bank, 2013 (III) MPWN 38.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submits that in sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act, fact of acknowledgment of writing has been discussed and petitioner has acknowledged the debt and given the cheque in 2014 therefore, period of limitation shall be computed. He relied upon section 118 of NI Act as well as judgment of the apex Court in the case of A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna, 2002 (2) SCC 642.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Case in hand is in respect of a loan given by the respondent to the petitioner on 12.5.2005 and for settlement of the same petitioner has given the cheque in 2014 (dated 28.1.2014) therefore, petitioner has acknowledged the debt as per section 18 of the Limitation Act. Even otherwise section 118 of the NI Act also raised presumption against the accused that until contrary is proved every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. Even, as per section 19 of the Limitation Act, presumption has been raised in favour of the holder of the cheque. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, 2016 (III) MPWN 39 and HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida and Another, 2015 Cr.L.J 2408, has drawn presumption. If the case is looked at the anvil of section 18 of the Limitation Act and sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, then no case for interference is made out. The trial Court rightly taken the cognizance. Petitioner has to plead and prove his part of innocence, if any, by leading evidence. In this case, revisional Court has also considered the matter and vide order dated 21.2.2018, rejected the revision.
7. No case for interference is made out. Petition sans merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
