BASANTH PICTURES, NO. 176, 6TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, BASANTH KUMAR PATIL Vs. M.A. GANESHA MURTHY, NO. 7, UPSTAIRS, 4TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE-560009

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order, acquitting the respondent for the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments. Act [hereinafter referred to as "N.I. Act" for short]. The brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are; The appellant, who is the complainant before the Trial Court Lent a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 -00 to the respondent i.e., the accused for business purpose through a cheque bearing No. 45275 dated 04.10.1995. The accused also executed a promissory note and received a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 -00 as per the cheque issued.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the cheque issued by the accused contains a promise to pay a time barred debt and therefore, a fresh cause of action arises by issuance of the cheque by the accused to the complainant towards payment of the time barred debt. Therefore, he contends that the debt due is not barred by limitation. It is his further contention that the accused after issuance of the cheque, which was bounced subsequently, was not paid the amount under the cheque to the complainant. Therefore, he claims that the approach of the trial Court in accepting the defence of the accused is erroneous and illegal.