Judgment R.K.Gupta, J. ( 1. ) The present appeal is directed against the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court by its judgment dated 21st January 2008 in criminal case no. 56/2004, wherein the trial Court has acquitted the respondent and the complaint has been dismissed. ( 2. ) The facts leading to the present case are that the appellant filed a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on the ground that the cheque which was issued by the respondents on 25/08/2003 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was presented to the bank but the same was not honoured by the bank as there were no sufficient funds in the account of the respondent. ( 3. ) The appellant purchased plot from the respondent by registered deed and possession of the said plot was also handed over to the appellant. Subsequently the appellant came to know that the aforesaid plot has been resold to someone by the respondents. The appellant objected the same and according to the complaint allegations the respondents issued a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- on 25/08/2003, the same was dishonoured. A notice was also given on 24/09/2003 but no other cheque was issued and ultimately when cheque was presented to the bank on 06/ 10/2003 for its encashment then the same was not honoured. ( 4. ) The Trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that after when the cheque was submitted again to the bank on 06/10/2003 and the same was not honoured then it was necessary for the complainant to give notice. The aforesaid reasoning is not correct but the case has to be decided by giving different reason. ( 5. ) The question in the present case is whether the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is complete ? For the purposes of convenience Section 138 is reproduced as under:- "138. The aforesaid reasoning is not correct but the case has to be decided by giving different reason. ( 5. ) The question in the present case is whether the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is complete ? For the purposes of convenience Section 138 is reproduced as under:- "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc, of fund in the account:-Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or with find which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (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 in due 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 cheque 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. ( 6. ( 6. ) In this reference, it is to be seen that when the complainant entered into witness box and gave his statement before the Court in paragraph 2 of his statement he has not stated that the said plot which was earlier sold to the appellant was resold to someone with his consent. In paragraph 3 of the complaint he only states that the aforesaid plot was resold to another person without the knowledge of the present appellant. In paragraph 2 of the statement he also corroborates that the plot which was sold to the present appellant by the respondent resold to some one without his knowledge and a cheque of Rs. 75,000/- was issued by the respondents which was not honoured. ( 7. ) The question in the present case is that whether the cheque which was issued by the respondent was in discharge of any debt or other libility. The burden was on the complainant to prove that the cheque which was issued was to dishcarge the debt or other liability. The statement of the complainant does not show that the cheque of Rs. 75,000/- which issued to the appellant by the respondent was in relation to the discharge of any debt or other liability. It may be a different thing that in the present case the respondent has committed a fraud by reselling the property which was already sold to the appellant but for the purposes of making out an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 the burden lies on the appellant to prove that cheque of Rs. 75,000/- was issued by the appellant in relation to the discharge or other liability. ( 8. ) On the basis of the facts enumerated in the complaint it does not show that the cheque was issued by the respondents to discharge a debt or any other liability. ( 9. ) The only question relates whether the cheque as such was issued to discharge any liablity. It is not a case of the appellant before the Court that the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as the plot as such was resold to someoneelse without his knowledge. The word liability has not been defind under the Act of 1881. ( 10. It is not a case of the appellant before the Court that the respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as the plot as such was resold to someoneelse without his knowledge. The word liability has not been defind under the Act of 1881. ( 10. ) The word liability does not include any time bassed debt, as such a debt is not existing liability and the court has no jurisdiction to order the admission to proof of any statute-barred debt. Re Art Reproduction Cp. Ltd (1951) 2 All ER 984 (CH) [Companies Act (1 of 1956) Sec. 468 (1)]:- (a) The term liability is of large and comprehensive significance, and when construed in its usual and ordinary sense, in which it is commonly employed, it expresses the state of being under obligation in law or in justice. First National Bank Ltd. V. Seth Saut Lal, AIR 1959 Punj 328, 330 (companies Act, 1913, Sch. I Table A regn. 28). (b) The expression liability in S. 21(b) of the Act must necessarily be other than the penalty contemplated by the Act. It would include to have the execution case dismissed for want of proper permit as required by S.13 and therefore that liability would continue by virtue of S.21 notwithstanding the expirty of the Act. Krishna Chandra Misra Vs. Sushi la Mitra, AIR 1951 Orissa 105 [Orissa House Rent Control Act 5 of 1947] (c) It is a broad terms of large and comprehensie significance and means-legal responsibility or obligation to do a thing. Mohd. Yagule Vs. The Union of India and others, AIR 1971 Del 45 , 48 (FB) [Punjab Reorganisation Act (31 of 1966), Sec. 67]. (d) The word liability in its widest import means an obligation or duty to do something or to refrain from doing something. Parliament intended to include in the word liability not only a financial obligation but also obligations of every other kind, including one of reinstating a government servant wrongly dismissed. W.W.Joshi Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 Bom 363 , 365 (State Reorganisation Act, 1956 Ss. 87, 88]. ( 11. ) Since the word liability has received consideration by the Courts, therefore it has to be understood with reference to the different judicial pronouncement. W.W.Joshi Vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1959 Bom 363 , 365 (State Reorganisation Act, 1956 Ss. 87, 88]. ( 11. ) Since the word liability has received consideration by the Courts, therefore it has to be understood with reference to the different judicial pronouncement. It is not a case of the appellant that after reselling of the property against the knowledge and wishes of the appellant the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/-. Paragraph 2 of the statement of the complaint does not state so. The cheque which was issued for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on 25/08/2003 can neither be treated to discharge the debt nor the liability. ( 12. ) In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any case to interfere. Accordingly Appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.