1 APPLN-1285.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1285 OF 2010 Mrs. Swaroopa Anulkumar Lodha .... Applicant Vs. Sukhdev Pukhraj Ghehlot & Anr. .... Respondents Shri V.K. Bodhane for the Applicant. Shri Harshad Inamdar for Respondent No.1. Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: JULY 19, 2011 P.C: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpri, Pune. The learned Magistrate held that the amount advanced was unaccounted as it was not shown by the applicant in his income-tax returns. Therefore, relying on the judgment in Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, reported in 2008 All M.R. (Cri.) 1164 (SC), which was followed 2 APPLN-1285.10 by this Court in Sanjay Mishra v. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki & Anr., reported in 2009 (3) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 157, the learned Magistrate held that a legally enforceable debt or liability was not proved by the applicant. In Rangappa v. Mohan, reported in 2010 Cri.L.J. 2871, a Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court overruled that part of the judgment in Krishna Janardhan Bhat s case (supra) which lays down that existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability cannot be a matter of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Further, the question as to whether unaccounted money advanced against a cheque could be recovered or not, would require consideration, since there is no reason why a person issuing a cheque, which is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt or liability, cannot recover the amount even if it was not reflected in his income-tax returns. The tax- man can always recover his dues if the transaction comes to be recorded. The very object of the Act is to replace cash transactions by transactions of cheques and therefore in order to instill confidence of public in cheque transactions, punishment is provided for dishonour of cheque. This object would be frustrated if the amounts which are so 3 APPLN-1285.10 far unaccounted are not allowed to come in the accounted transactions of money. Therefore, since the question would require consideration, leave granted. Appeal admitted. Call for the R & P.. Since the learned counsel states that he would be representing respondent No.1, action under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. is not necessary. The application accordingly stands disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)