Judgment Harbans Lal, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2005 passed by the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala whereby he dismissed the complaint and acquitted Vanita accused of the charge framed against her. 2. The facts in brief are that the accused Vanita secured loan to the tune of Rs. 95,000/- from the complainant Manjit Kaur for household management, but she failed to repay the same despite repeated requests made by the latter. In order to repay the said amount, the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 117716 dated 28.6.2003 for Rs. 95,000/-in favour of the complainant drawn on her saving bank account No. 1694 being maintained with Capital Local Area Bank Limited, Jalandhar Road Kapurthala. The said cheque on being presented by the complainant through her bankers i.e. Central Bank, Kapurthala was dishonored and received back with memo dated 28.6.2003 issued by the bankers of the accused bearing remarks "Insufficient Funds". Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and informed her about the fact that the cheque has been bounced and demanded the amount of cheque, but she refused to pay the same. Notice dated 9.7.2003 was issued by the complainant calling upon the accused to make the payment of the said amount. Such notice has been received by the accused, but nonetheless she did not pay the said amount. Sequelly, the complaint was lodged on 30.7.2003 in the Court. 3. After appearance of the accused, the complainant examined Sanjiv Kumar Bhagi, Executive Capital Bank, Kapurthala P.W.2 in addition to her own statement as P.W. 1. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against her and put forth as under :- "Yes. The cheque has been forged by the complainant which was never filled by me, nor given to the complainant. In fact complainant obtained this cheque from one Mr. Toni to whom I had given this blank cheque in connection with some loan transaction duly signed by me. The complainant used the said cheque in connivance with Toni and in connivance with other person. I am innocent." 4. She did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence as noticed at the outset. The complainant used the said cheque in connivance with Toni and in connivance with other person. I am innocent." 4. She did not adduce any evidence in defence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted the accused of the charged offence as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved with her acquittal, this appeal has been preferred by the complainant - Manjit Kaur. 5. This case was adjourned from time to time for arguments, but none had been putting in appearance on behalf of the parties despite the fact that this matter for hearing was also displayed on the net. However, I have perused the record with due care and circumspection. 6. As pleaded in the grounds of appeal, that although the appellant led sufficient evidence to prove her case, but the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the recovery of amount could have been made by the appellant within a period of three years. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on the record and simply dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. The learned trial Court has held that the time barred debt is not covered under this provision, since liability has not been acknowledged within a period of limitation by the respondent. Therefore, it does not amount to acknowledgment on her part. The learned trial Court did not appreciate this fact that the cheque was issued by the respondent in favour of the appellant and when the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The respondent has not denied that the cheque was not issued by her to the appellant. 7. I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to these grounds taken up in the appeal. 8. Manjit Kaur - appellant as P.W. 1 has testified that "I know the accused present in Court. Accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 95,000/- from me. I demanded the money so many times, ultimately the accused issued a cheque dated 28.6.2003.1 have seen the original cheque which is Ex. P. 1." Obviously, she has not disclosed the date, month and year when she had advanced this amount as loan to the accused- respondent. Accused has borrowed a sum of Rs. 95,000/- from me. I demanded the money so many times, ultimately the accused issued a cheque dated 28.6.2003.1 have seen the original cheque which is Ex. P. 1." Obviously, she has not disclosed the date, month and year when she had advanced this amount as loan to the accused- respondent. It is in her cross-examination that "The accused has not returned the money for about four years when she had taken the same from me as loan and after four years she issued the cheque in dispute. I have not given any money as loan to any other person. The accused is not my relative. No writing work was done when I had given money to the accused." It emanates from this evidence mat when the alleged cheque Ex. P.l was issued at that point of time, a period of more than four years had already elapsed since the day of advancement of the disputed amount as loan. In re : Ashwini Satish Bhat (Mrs.) v. Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar, 2000(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 214: 2000(1) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 829, it has been observed as under :- "The ruling upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Advocate for the respondent is applicable on all fours. In that case loan was advanced in the year 1985 and the cheque was issued in the year 1990. By the time the cheque was issued, the debt was barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was obtained before the expiry of 3 years from the date of loan. In these circumstances, it was held there that the debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque and the accused could not be punished under section 138 of the said. Act. In the light of Explanation to the said section, it was further held therein that in case a cheque is issued for time barred debt and it is dishonoured, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 138 on the ground that the said debt was not legally recoverable." 9. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the cheque was issued on 28.6.2003. On reckoning, it works out that the loan was advanced somewhere in June, 1999. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the cheque was issued on 28.6.2003. On reckoning, it works out that the loan was advanced somewhere in June, 1999. A meticulous perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that the appellant has not produced any document or other evidence revealing that the accused-respondent had acknowledged the debt within three years from the date of loan. Thus, by the time, the cheque was issued, the debt became barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was obtained before the expiry of three years from the date of loan. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 deals with the theory underlying the doctrine of acknow-ledgment. The true principle underlying an acknowledgment is that it merely renews the liability and gives the creditor or claimant a fresh period of limitation according to the nature of the liability which exists at the date of the acknowledgment. An acknowledgment cannot be regarded as evidentiary of the debt but an acknowledgment that a person owes money to another, a specified person is good evidence of his owing money to another. The dishonoured cheque Ex. PI cannot be treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, since the acknowledgment should be before the period of limitation is over and that it should be in writing. Thus, it cannot be said that the appellant has been able to prove that Ex. PI was in relation to a legally enforceable debt or liability in law as the same was admittedly issued after more than three years of the advancement of the alleged amount as loan. So, if the matter is viewed in the background of the observations rendered in re: Ashwini Satish Bhat (Mrs.) (supra), it turns out that the accused- respondent had issued the cheque in 2003 when the debt had already become time barred. The acknowledgment of the alleged amount in 2003 was not valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and consequently it was not a legally enforceable debt. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinbefore, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 11. Disposed of accordingly.