( 1 ) THE Asstt. CIT, Circle I, Ayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad, is the appellant herein who is the complainant in C. C. No. 124 of 1991. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad, dt. 24/05/1993, the present appeal is filed.

( 2 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. The IT Act as it stood prior to 1/04/1989, under s. 276dd provides for prosecution of persons who received deposits or loans otherwise than by an account payee bank cheque or account payee draft and provides for imprisonment for a term extending to two years and also liable to fine equal to the amount of such loan or deposit. But Parliament in its wisdom omitted the said section from the Act by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, which came into force on 1/04/1989. In this case, the Department launched the prosecution against the accused for accepting the deposit otherwise than by way of account payee cheque or account payee bank draft on different dates subsequent to 1/04/1989, by contending that though s. 276dd is omitted s. 269ss is on the statute book, and any violation of that provision must necessarily lead to criminal prosecution. In support of