PRATAP SINGH, J.

( 1 ) The accused in C. C. No. 3593/90 on the file of X Metropolitan magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the proceedings in C. C. No. 3593/90.

( 2 ) THE respondent has filed the complaint under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments act, against he petitioner on the following grounds :-The petitioner/accused purchased chemical goods for Rs. 20,875-60 on 16. 12. 1989 and issued a cheque, bearing No. 913351 dated 31. 1. 1990 for the said sum, drawn on Punjab National Bank. The complainant presented the cheque in Indian Overseas bank, Madras. The same was dishonoured and returned to the complainant with endorsement "refer to drawer" on 6. 2. 1990. After issuing the notice, which the accused had received and after waiting for 15 days, since the accused did not pay the amounts, has come forward with this petition.

( 3 ) MR. S. Sethruamakrishnan, the learned counsel for Mr. V. Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that according to the complaint the cheque was returned with endorsement "refer to drawer" and that it would not satisfy the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as the Act ). The learned counsel would submit that according to Section 138 of the Act, only in a case where the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement, the offence is made out and not otherwise. He relied upon Manohar v. Mahalingam, 1992 l. W. (Crl.) 367. In para 10 of the judgment, Justice Padmini Jesudurai has laid as follows :-"the answer refer to drawer often adopted by banker, could mean anything from shortage of time, to death or insolvency of the drawer and could also include insufficiency of funds. It could include serving of a garnishee order and could be a milder form of refusal than no funds or no arrangement. At times, it may not really reflect the financial position of the drawer and could only mean, we are not paying just ask the drawer why,. Unlike most other answers, which if proved to be untrue, would be liabellous the return refer to drawer is not. It is seen therefore, that the nomenclature of the return by itself, would not be decisive of the cause of the return. "

( 4 ) IN the unreported decision in Crl. M. P. 9228/90, similar point was raised before Justice Janarthanma and it was not accepted by the learned Judge. The learned Judge has laid as follows:-

"The third and the last submission, on the face of it, is untenable. The sordid fact is that the cheque, when on proper presentation, remained unpaid. By the use of the phraseology by the banker "refer to drawer", the banker euphemistically stated, by way of courtesy to its customers, that his bank account is not credited with money sufficient to honour the cheque or that it expects the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made to the bank. As such, it has to be construed, the reason for non-payment had been conveyed to the drawer of the cheque, the circumstances, in a most courteous and civilised way, by the use of pleasant phraseology refer to drawer without hurting his feelings. "

( 5 ) SO, simply because the return was with an endorsement refer to drawer, it cannot be concluded that it was not due to insufficiency of funds or exceeding the arrangement made, the cheque was dishonoured. It is matter of evidence, which can be gone into only at the time of trial. In view of the rulings of this court, which i have referred to supra, I am clear that on the ground that the endorsement of the return was refer to drawer, the proceeding cannot be quashed at the threshold. Hence this petition shall stand dismissed. Petition dismissed.