Impact of limitation act on NI Act

In the given set of circumstances,  burden is heavy on the complainant to prove that,  "the accused had issued cheque Dated: 19-11-2007".  Admittedly, the undated cheque was given at the time of loan itself, which is in the year 2002.  Here the important question to be considered is, "whether the cheque was issued by the accused" or "whether the complainant obtained undated blank cheque from the accused at the time of granting loan and subsequently the complainant got filled up the blanks".  In the first case, the accused is liable for conviction and in the later case, he is not liable.

Sec.25(3) of Contract Act. will supported to you to show that the existing liablity is not Time Barred.There is one Apex Court Judgment to support your case. At present i am not having the said Judgment , howevver can be inform on Monday.  

I like to cliarify that these are the conditions to be satisfied for offence u/s 138 N.I Act

(a) The cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier.

(b) The payee or the holder induce course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer, of the cheque, "within thirty days" of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheques as unpaid, and

(c) The drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. 

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability].

Also sec. 114 of N.I act there are presumptions under this clause.  So that the holder of the cheque can easily prove the presumption.

It is the duty of the accused to disprove or rebut the presumption.

Shri Pandy ji you have refered 25(3) of contract act but it will not come in picture in given circumstances. The accused should have issued cheque after limitation willingly than only this provision will be useful.

Sir,

Please see the Judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Ramakrishnan v/s Gangadharan Nair & Anrs reported in 2007CriLJ1486.

I think this will solve your problem

Thanks,

JAgat Tatia

Adv