JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant – original complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 13.12.2005 passed in Criminal Case No. 2600 of 2003 by learned 7th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gandhinagar, acquitting the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. The precise case of the appellant – complainant is that as the complainant and the respondent accused both belonged to the same caste & community and were known to each other, for the need of business, the accused borrowed Rs.8 Lacs from him with a promise that he would return the same within a short period. Thereafter, on completion of that period, the complainant demanded the amount and in lieu thereof, the accused issued a cheque in favour of the complainant for Rs.8 Lacs which was deposited and came to be bounced with an endorsement “insufficient fund”. In consequent whereof, the complainant issued notice through Registered AD Post as well as postal service which the accused refused to accept. Therefore, the aforesaid complaint came to be lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent accused. 3. The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and issued process and thereafter, recorded the evidence. 3.1 The complainant was examined at Exh.13 wherein he deposed the same fact as narrated above and further inter alia deposed that he had lent Rs.8 Lacs to the accused on 22.04.2003 and on the same day, the accused had handed over a cheque of Rs.8 Lacs to him of Bank of Baroda, Unava. In the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that there was a transaction between him and the accused in the year 1995 and in installments, he had lent the amount to the accused. In the same way, while the court by putting a question ascertained that as to whether the transaction was in the year 1995 to which he replied in affirmative and further stated that the amount was lent in installments. The complainant also admitted that he was also accused and was facing trial for misappropriation of the amount from the Cooperative Bank, Unava. The complainant also admitted that he was also accused and was facing trial for misappropriation of the amount from the Cooperative Bank, Unava. Further also, the complainant admitted that in the statutory notice, he had neither given the details as regards the time when the amount was lent to the accused nor the time within which it was required to be returned. Over & above his deposition, the complainant produced the documents as regards the cheque bounced, notice and refusal of notice etc. 3.2 On the other hand, the respondent accused himself examined the appellant complainant. In his deposition, the respondent deposed that at the relevant time, he was serving at Ahmedabad and the complainant was known to him, but he had never any transaction with him. He deposed that he had never borrowed any amount from the complainant. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had refused the notice and the cheque was bearing his signature. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mayank Vora for the appellant – complainant, learned advocate Mr. D. J. Bhatt for respondent No.1 – accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Moxa Thakker for respondent No.2 – State of Gujarat. 5. Learned advocate for the appellant – complainant has argued that since the signature over the cheque has been admitted by the respondent accused, in view of clear provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption was required to be drawn that the cheque in question was issued for due discharge of legally enforceable dues which the learned trial court failed to believe so. 6. On the other hand, learned advocate for respondent No.1 accused has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal delivered by the learned trial court and contended that the complaint is totally vague containing no particular that as to when the amount came to be lent to the accused. Learned advocate has also argued that not only that, even the complaint is not disclosing the mode of payment or any sort of document and within how much period, the amount was required to be returned. Learned advocate has further argued that the very sort precise complaint of one page came to be lodged containing no details. Learned advocate has argued that against the aforesaid complaint, in the deposition in examination-in-chief itself, the complainant deposed that he had lent Rs. Learned advocate has further argued that the very sort precise complaint of one page came to be lodged containing no details. Learned advocate has argued that against the aforesaid complaint, in the deposition in examination-in-chief itself, the complainant deposed that he had lent Rs. 8 Lacs to the accused on 22.04.2003 and on the very day in return, he had issued the cheque, whereas, in the cross-examination, the complainant repeatedly, while was confronted by learned advocate for the accused as well as by the court, both the times, replied that the transaction as regards lending the money to the accused took place in the year 1995 i.e. 9 years prior to issuance of the cheque. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence on record, according to his submission, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the respondent which calls for no interference. 7. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record & proceedings and impugned judgment of the learned trial court. 8. On overall evaluation of factual scenario, the complainant himself is not sure that as to when the amount was lent to the accused. Indisputably, in the complaint and the notice also, the complainant had not narrated the date, time or any particular as regards the transaction in question. In his deposition in examination-in-chief, the complainant stated that on 22.04.2003, he had lent Rs.8 Lacs to the accused and on the same day, the accused, in return, issued the impugned cheque to him. Further, in the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the transaction in question was of the year 1995. 9. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence emerging out from the mouth of the complainant himself, he has not come with definite case and consequently, the complainant could not prove that the aforesaid cheque was for legally enforceable debt as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If the case of the complainant may be believed to be true that he had lent the amount to the accused in the year 1995, then the cheque issued in the year 2003 is barred by period of limitation and no longer remained for legally enforceable debt. Consequently, no criminal liability could be fastened upon the respondent. 10. In view of above, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and dismissed. The record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.