notice on 28.10.2009, but, the accused failed to return the cheque amount within the prescribed time limit as provided under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The accused had failed to rebut the presumption in favour of the complainant. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act stood fulfilled. He was, accordingly, sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant. In default of fine, he had to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 4. Learned appellate court analyzed the material evidence on record and found that the cheque was returned with the endorsement by the bank “Fund Insufficient” and there was a further endorsement that the “Cheque Is Not Valid”. Cheque, in question, (Ext.-3), showed that it is a loose cheque though the account number was mentioned and signature was also there but the accused denied his signature. It was held irrelevant as the Bank had not made any endorsement to the fact that the signature of the drawer of the cheque varies. Accused had denied taking any friendly loan. The complainant, on his part during his examination and cross-examination, could not say the date and time of giving of the friendly loan nor produced any document of giving such friendly loan. As per the learned appellate court, cheque should have been issued validly against any legally enforceable debt or liability. If the loan had become time barred then the cheque for such debt, even if it is dishonoured will not be covered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. If the cheque was not valid, no prosecution
