Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. No further DW was examined.

10. Both the parties filed their respective written arguments on record. I have perused the same.

11. In the present case, the complainant has remained silent in respect of the bills (Mark A, B & C) and has never connected the same with respect to the liability of the accused in respect of cheque (Ex.CW­1/1). In his cross examination dated 16.03.2009, the complainant submits that he issued the bills but the same are filed in CC NO. 75/1 which is pending in this court. The bills, if any, on record of the said CC number have not been proved by the complainant by summoning the judicial record concerned. He admits in his cross examination that he did not issue any bill of the amount of cheque in question. He relied on copy of bills (Mark A, B & C) CC No. 84/1/02 Om Prakash Jain Vs Parmod Kumar Page of 10 which are of the year 2002. Thus, the complainant is referring to the debt which accrued in his favour and against the accused in the year 1992 and the same, by all means, became time barred in the year 1995. The accused, in his chief examination, admits that he had issued the cheque in question in the year 1996 and not in 2002. Issuance of the cheque in the year 1996 would not amount to an acknowledgment of a legally recoverable debt, which liability extinguished in the year 1995. It is in the written arguments of the accused that on the date of the presentation of the cheque, no legally recoverable liability existed. I have considered the aforesaid submissions. As per case titled "Joseph Vs Devassia" 2002 DCR 108 and "M/s Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd Vs Vinay Aggarwal" 2009 (2) JCC (NI) 143 and "Joseph Sartho Vs Gopinath Nair" 2009 (I) CCC 443 (Kerala) (DB), it would be clear that in the absence of acknowledgment 'within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act 1995', a time barred debt can not be considered to be a legally recoverable liability. At the same time, from the ratio of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case titled "H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R" reported in 2007 CLJ 583, it is held that although in the given case, there may not be acknowledgment for extension of the period of limitation, yet the factum of issuance of cheque and its dishonour would constitute an offence U/s 138 of the Act. In the said case, a debt of Rs. 60,000/­ had become time barred on 12.06.1997, still the accused chose to issue two cheques which dishonoured on presentation. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that since the complainant had not disputed his signatures on the dishonoured cheque, they constituted an agreement or compromise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt. In the said case, Hon'ble CC No. 84/1/02 Om Prakash Jain Vs Parmod Kumar Page of 10 High Court of Karnataka observed, while placing reliance on the observation made by 'Lord Mansfield in Hawkers Vs Saunders" (1782) 98 ER 1091 as under: ­ "Where a man is under a legal or equitable obligation to pay, the law implies a promise, though none was ever actually made. A fortiorio, a legal or equitable duty is a sufficient consideration for an actual promise. Where a man is under a moral obligation, which no Court of Law or equity can enforce, and promises, the honesty and rectitude of the thing is a consideration. As if a man promises to pay a just debt, the recovery of which is barred by the Statute of Limitations; or, if a man, after he comes of age, promises to pay a meritorious debt contracted during his minority, but not for necessaries or if a bankrupt, in affluent circumstances after his certificate, promises to pay the whole of his debts; or if a man promises to perform a secret trust, or a trust void for want of writing, by the Statute of Frauds.