1 Appln 21-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2011 Paras Nath Chhedi Shukla .Applicant V/s. Rajesh Ram Bilas Nigam & anr. .Respondents Mr.Pramod Y. Keni i/b. M/s.Thakordas & Madgavkar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against Judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai reversing the conviction of respondent No.1 recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Judge has held that the Complainant must prove and discharge the burden which initially lies on him to prove existence of legally enforceable debt or 2 Appln 21-2011 liability. The learned Judge went on to observe that the term existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. This was possibly because of reliance on Judgment of the Supreme Court in Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/s. Dattatrata G. Hegde, reported at 2008 ALL MR(Cri)1164 (S.C.). This part of the Judgment has been specifically overruled by a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan, reported at 2010 CRI.L.J.2871. In view of this, leave granted. 2. Admit. 3. Call for R & P. 4. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)