1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1023 OF 2011 Pratap alias Prakash Kripaldas .Applicant Chugh V/s. Mohammed Shafi Abdul Karim & anr. .Respondents Mr.Prakash Naik, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, 2 Kurla. The learned Magistrate relied on observations of this Court in Sanjay Mishra v. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr., reported at 2009(5) Bom.C.R. 464 about cheque being issued in discharge of liability of repaying unaccounted money. Whether a person has complied with the requirements of Section 269SS of the Income-Tax Act or not while making the payment of advance in cash may be a matter which could be dealt with appropriately by the revenue authorities under the Income-Tax Act. It is not that Section 271D makes advancing amounts in cash an offence. It only prescribes a penalty for such advances. Once the Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court holds that presumption under Section 139 of the Act also extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, it would be difficult to hold that the person concerned would not be entitled to receive back his money simply because he had given the advance in cash and there was no 3 receipt to prove the same. All this would require consideration. Hence, leave granted 3. Admit. 4. Call for R & P. 5. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)