Cheque as written promise can revive a time-barred debt and support liability under cheque dishonour law.

A cheque issued towards an alleged time-barred debt can amount to a written promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, making the liability enforceable for Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused's inconsistent stand on repayment and the cheque's purpose failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 in favour of the complainant. On the facts proved, the defence of limitation did not displace liability because the cheque itself acknowledged the debt and created a fresh enforceable obligation. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the matter was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution was sustainable where the drawer claimed the debt was time-barred and that the cheque was issued only as a security cheque, and whether the cheque constituted a fresh written promise sufficient to revive enforceability.

Analysis: The record showed inconsistent versions from the accused regarding the extent of repayment and the purpose of issuing the cheque. The earlier payments and the later cheque did not support the defence that there was no subsisting liability. In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut them. The Court held that issuance of a cheque can amount to a promise in writing within Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and a cheque given towards a debt otherwise barred by limitation can revive enforceability. The Court also held that the question of limitation could not be used to displace liability in the facts proved here, because the cheque itself acknowledged the debt and generated a fresh enforceable obligation.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not sustainable, and the defence of limitation failed; the cheque was treated as a valid acknowledgment and promise to pay, attracting Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Final Conclusion: The impugned acquittal was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued for a debt otherwise claimed to be time-barred can constitute a written promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, thereby rendering the liability legally enforceable for the purpose of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---