1 Appln 5722-2009 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5722 OF 2009 Jayprakash Ramanand Shukla .Applicant V/s. Housala Prasad Rampyare Pandey .Respondents & anr. Mr.Raju M. Yamgar, Advocate, for the Applicant Mrs.A.S.Pai, APP, for Respondent No.2 - State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH JULY, 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 offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Act recorded by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Kurla. The learned Magistrate observed that the accused had admitted signature on the cheque. He had also 2 Appln 5722-2009 admitted that the cheque was given by him to the complainant but had stated that the cheque was not given for refund of any loan but towards electricity bill. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to rely on the Judgment in Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported at 2008 ALL MR (Cri)1164 (S.C.) where the Court had held that it was for the complainant to prove those dues for which the cheque was issued were legally enforceable dues. Now, this proposition was overruled by the three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Mohan, reported at 2010 CRI.L.J.2871. In any case, whether it was for electricity bill or for returning the amount borrowed, the learned Magistrate should have seen that after admission of signature as well as the delivery of cheque, the burden would have been on the accused to show that the cheque was not for legally enforceable liability or dues by rebutting the presumption raised. Leave granted. 3 Appln 5722-2009 3. Admit. 4. Call for R & P. 5. Action under Section 390. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)