ORAL ORDER

1. Learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani submits that judgment and order of acquittal was passed by the learned trial court only on the ground of time barred debt. Learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani has drawn the attention of this court with regard to the reasons assigned for acquittal wherein learned trial court has observed that last transaction which was carried out was of 23.04.2016 and the disputed cheque which was dishonoured was of 04.07.2019.

1.1. Learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani submits that in support of the complaint the income tax returns for the year 2018-19 was produced below Exh 21 as well as the ledger accounts were also produced below Exh.22 wherein, the debt qua the present applicant has been shown by the complainant.

1.2. Learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani submits that by producing the documents it can be averred that the acknowledgment given qua the debt and therefore, it cannot be said the debt is time barred debt.

2. The learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani relies on the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which reproduced hereinbelow:-

“18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.—(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, (b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.”

3. The learned advocate Mr.Harshil Dattani further relies on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble 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 w