ORAL ORDER

ORDER IN R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL)

NO. 940 of 2024

1. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submits that though the complainant’s has produced the evidence below Exhibit 15, the agreement to sale and the statement of account i.e. Exhibit 16, learned trial Court had dismissed the complaint and acquitted the respondent-accused only on the ground of time barred debt. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submits that the transactions between the complainant and the accused was with regard to purchase of the land and for that Banakhat was executed on 01.12.2015 wherein the sale consideration amount of Rs.20 Lakh is received was mentioned and as per the condition No.6 it is mentioned that if the sale deed is not executed within a period of six months then the complainant would entitle to receive the amount which is paid by him along with the lost which may occurred to complainant.

2. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submits that the amount of Rs.20 Lakh which was paid through RTGS is not disputed by the respondent-accused and it is also not in dispute that sale deed was not executed within time prescribed in the agreement to sale and for that repayment of the sale consideration amount the cheque of Rs.32,53,150/- was issued in favour of the complainant. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submits that as per the case of the complainant, the said cheque was issued on 04.03.2021, which was dishonored on endorsement of insufÏcient fund. Learned advocate Mr.Majmudar submit that as per section 18 of the Limitation Act, the limitation period would start from the date of acknowledgment. When the accused himself had acknowledged the debt by issuing the cheuqe in the year 2021, the conclusion arrived by the learned trial Court that the debt is time barred and is against the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of S. Natarajan v/s. Sama Dharman and another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 413. Para 8 of the said decision reproduced hereinbelow:-

“8. In this connection, we may usefully refer to a judgment of this Court in A.V. Murthy v. B.S. Nagabasavanna where the accused had alleged that the cheque issued by him in favour of the complainant in respect of sum advanced to the accused by the complainant four years ago was dishonoured by the bank for the reasons "account closed". The Magistrate had issued summons to the accused. The Sessions Court quashed the proceedings on the ground that the alleged debt was barred by limitation at the time of issuance of cheque and, therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused under the Explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. While dealing with the challenge to this order, this Court observed that under Section 118 of the NI Act, there is a presumption that until the contrary is proved, every negotiable instrument was drawn for consideration. This Court further observed that Section 139 of the NI Act specifically notes that it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 of the NI Act for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. This Court further observed that under sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act, a promise, made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or by his agent generally or specially authorized in that behalf, to pay wholly or in part a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits, is a valid contract. Referring to the facts before it, this Court observed that the complainant therein had submitted his balance sheet, prepared for every year subsequent to the loan advanced by the complainant and had shown the amount as deposits from friends. This Court noticed that the relevant balance sheet is also produced in the Court. This Court observed that if the amount borrowed by the accused therein is shown in t