ABHIMANYU ROUT Vs. PREMRAJ AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard further argument and on consent of the parties the CRLMC is disposed of at the stage of admission in the following manner.

(2.) Petitioner is the accused in I.C.C. No. 121 of 2003 of the Court of S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal. Cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'N.I. Act') has been taken against him on the basis of the allegation that on 23/3/1999 accused-petitioner, under a credit memo, purchased six number of Apollo Tyres along with tubes and flaps from the complainant-opposite party and did not pay the amount, but on 1/6/2003 acknowledged that dues in a paper affixed with revenue stamp. Thereafter on 9/3/2003 accused intended to repay that debt and accordingly issued a cheque, which bounced. In spite of due intimation as provided in Section 138 of the N.I. Act, when payment of the debts/dues was not made by the accused, after expiry of the statutory period complainant-opposite party instituted the aforesaid I.C.C. Case and after recording the statement of the complainant, learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal passed the order of cognizance and issued process against the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the ratio in the case of Jiwanlal Achariya v. Rameshwarlal Agarwalla, argues that in view of the provision in Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the ratio in the above noted case, a time barred debt cannot be enforced under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On the other hand, Mr. D. Mishra, learned Counsel for the complainant-opposite party relied on the ratio in the cases of K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr.and M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr, argued that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner does not bear any merit and, apart from that such a contention can be gone into only at the stage of trial and not at the threshold of the criminal prosecution.