Cheque revalidation and signed acknowledgments can extend debt enforceability, keeping Section 138 prosecution alive.

Signed renewal endorsements made before expiry of limitation can operate as acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and a cheque signed by the drawer may amount to a fresh promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. On that basis, repeated revalidation of the cheque can extend or revive enforceability of the debt. Where the cheque is issued and presented within the extended period, the debt remains legally recoverable and prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not barred by limitation. The document states that, on these principles, the quashing request failed because the liability was enforceable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cheque liability was barred by limitation so as to negate prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the signed endorsements and revalidation of the cheque constituted acknowledgment of liability or a fresh promise extending enforceability of the debt.

Issue (i): whether the cheque liability was barred by limitation so as to negate prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The debt was treated as not time-barred because the borrower had signed renewal endorsements extending repayment and the cheque was issued and presented within the extended period. A debt remains relevant for Section 138 if it is legally recoverable on the date of the cheque or complaint.

Conclusion: The liability was not barred by limitation, and the objection on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): whether the signed endorsements and revalidation of the cheque constituted acknowledgment of liability or a fresh promise extending enforceability of the debt.

Analysis: Signed endorsements made before expiry of limitation were treated as acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The cheque, being a signed promise to pay, was also treated as a fresh promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and repeated revalidation was held sufficient to revive enforceability.

Conclusion: The endorsements and revalidation constituted acknowledgment and a fresh promise, making the debt legally enforceable.

Final Conclusion: The application for quashing failed because the cheque represented an enforceable liability and the prosecution under Section 138 could proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed acknowledgment made before expiry of limitation, or a cheque revalidated by the drawer within time, can extend or revive enforceability of the debt for the purpose of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---