M.S. VAIDYA, J.

The respondent No. 1-Bhupendra s/o Ambalal Patel was an employee of the petitioner as his Branch Manager-cum-Chief Accountant for several years prior to the year 1989. In an audit which was concluded on or about 6th of July, 1989, it was discovered that during the period of 3 or 4 years prior to that date, he had misappropriated amounts to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs approximately. According to the petitioner, the father of the respondent No. 1 also, was in the employment of the petitioner for quite some time and when the matter was referred to him and was discussed with respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 had agreed to issue cheques in respect of part of the amount that was found due from him. It is averred in the complaint that cheque No. 6203904 dated 15-7-1989 for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs was the first cheque issued. Simultaneously, three other cheques bearing Nos. 6203905, 62039906 and 6203907 bearing dates 31st August, 1989, 30th September, 1989 and 31st October, 1989 respectively were issued, each for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Thus, a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was sought to be made good.

2.The first cheque bearing No. 6203904 dated 15th July, 1989 for Rs. 3 lakhs was presented to the bank for collection through the banker. But, the same was returned unpaid by the bank with the endorsement that the payment of the cheque was stopped by the drawer. The statutory notice dated 22-7-1989 was issued to the respondent No. 1. The same was served on him on 25-7-1989. The payment was not made within 15 days as prescribed by section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and, therefore, on 1-9-1989 a complaint was lodged in that respect. Criminal Application No. 1076/1992 has arisen out of that transaction.

3.The second cheque bearing No. 6203905 was presented to the bank and was returned unpaid with the similar remark. Therefore, the statutory notice dated 11-9-1989 was issued. The amount was not paid by the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the complaint came to be filed on 19-10-1989. Criminal Application No. 1073/1992 arises out of this transaction. The third cheque bearing No. 6203906 dated 30th September, 1989 was presented to the bank and was returned for similar reason. The stautory notice was issued on 17-10-1989. The amount was not paid within the prescribed period of 15 days and, therefore, a separate complaint was lodged on 1-12-1989.

4.Cheque No. 6203907 dated 31-10-1989 was also presented to the bank and was returned unpaid with similar remark. Therefore, statutory notice was issued on 7-11-1989 and, as the amount was not paid within 15 days the complaint was lodged on 3-1-1990.

5.All these complaints were lodged before the 5th Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Aurangabad and after the necessary formalities, the learned Magistrate had ordered the process to be issued in all the four cases.

6.The respondent No. 1-Bhupendra, then, preferred Revision Petitions in the Sessions Court against those four orders passed on four complaints bearing Criminal Revision Application Nos. 194/1990; 195/1990; 196/1990 and 262/1989. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, who heard the matters allowed the Revision Petitions holding that as the payments of the cheques were stopped by the respondent No. 1, there was no question of commission of any offence involved and that, as no offence was disclosed in the matter, the complaints were liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, he had set aside the orders of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in all the four matters and had dismissed the complaints under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance was placed on the decision in Rama Gupta and others v. M/s. Bakemans Home Products Ltd., II (1992) C.C.R. 1484, wherein such a view was taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

7.Having felt aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, maintaining that the decision of the Lower Court was founded on a wrong view of the law and that the point was since settled by a rulings of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar and others, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 561/1992, decided at Bombay (Kurdukar & Saldhana, JJ.) on July 29, 1992. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Thomas Varghese v. P. Jerome, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3080, wherein the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court had taken a similar view. It was contended that what was relevant for the purposes of determining whether or not, an offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was disclosed was whether or not, the drawer of the cheque had arranged for payment or, had made the payment of the amount covered by the cheque within the period of 15 days prescribed under the said section and not the reason for which the cheque was dishonoured by the bank.

8.Shri A.P. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 relied upon the decision of a Single Judge (Dani, J.) in Omprakash Bhojraj Maniyar v. Swati Girish Bhide, 1992 Mh.L.J. 302 : 1992 (2) Bom.C.R. 106, in which reliance was placed on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in G.F. Hunasikathimath v. State of Karnataka and others, 1991 (1) Crimes 227, (K. Ramachandriah, J.) and decision of a Single Judge (Pratap Singh, J.) in Mrs. R. Jayalakshmi v. Mrs. Rashida, 1991 (1) Crimes page 5. He submitted also that, when the payment of the cheques in question was stopped by the respondent No. 1 well in advance of the presentation of the cheques, there was no question of the facts in question constituting an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

9.Shri V.B. Nayak, learned A.P.P. supported Shri S.N. Loya, Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the orders passed by the Sessions Judge deserved to be set aside and the matters deserved to be sent to the concerned Magistrate, Aurangabad, for trial according to law.

10.The facts of the case are not in dispute to the extent that the respondent No. 1 had issued four cheques named above bearing dated 15-7-1989, 31-8-1989; 30-9-1989 and 31-10-1989 for a total sum of Rs. 6 lakhs and that the said cheques were duly presented for payment through the bankers and were dishonoured on the ground that the payment was stopped by the drawer of the cheques. It was also not in dispute that the stoppage of the payment was informed to the petitioner-complainant. The question is, whether or not, the non-payment of the amount covered by the cheques on account of the respondent No. 1s act in stopping the payment would amount to an offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 had placed reliance upon the three rulings of Single Judges of three High Courts in which such a view was taken. The said rulings were : Omprakash Bhojraj Maniyar v. Swati Birish Bhide, 1992 Mh.L.J. 302 : G.F. Hunasikathimath v. State of Karnataka and others, 1991(1) Crimes 227 and Mrs. R. Jayalakshmi v. Mrs. Rashida, 1991(1) Crimes page 5, which are already referred to above. It is not necessary to go into the reasons assigned in those judgments. Suffice it to state that the view so taken in the aforesaid three rulings, does not appear to be a good law in view of at least two Division Bench judgments of two High Courts. In Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Joglekar, Cri. Writ Petition No. 561/1992, decided on July 29, 1992 (Kurdukar and Saldhana, JJ.), this was one of the specific points referred to the Division Bench for decision. The case of Omprakash Bhojraj Maniyar v. Swati Girish Bhide, (supra) was considered by the Division Bench and it was observed that the view taken in that case by Single Judge of this Court was too narrow a construction of the section and it had failed to take into account the objects and reasons behind the amendment. It was pointed out that the wording and the endorsement from the bank, or the circumstances under which a cheque was returned, were not the guiding criteria but the fact that, on presentation of a cheque, the payment was not made is the material fact. It was observed that there could be a host of reasons for return of the cheque but, the bottomline of the situation was that the payment could not be made by the banker and the mechanics of the reasons apart, the irresistible conclusion that had the funds been available, the payment would have been made, led back to the position that the dishonour of the cheque implied insufficiency of funds. Pointing out that the amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act were intended to correct the instances of of dishonour of cheques and it would have to be presumed that the multifarious grounds on which a cheque could be dishonoured were common place and in not having any exception for such a situation. The legislative intent behind section 138 was that cases of dishonour of cheques would constitute a criminal offence unless the payment was forthcoming within the prescribed period. The circumstances which might contribute to the situation would be irrelevant. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court was equally specific in K. Thomas Varghese v. Jerome, 1992 Cri.L.J. 3080, in observing that, "where the cheque issued by the drawer was dishonoured by the bank and returned to the drawer with the endorsement that `payment stopped by the drawer, and in the complaint the complainant had specifically stated that the accused had no amount in his account with the bank for honouring the cheque and that he mischievously and maliciously issued a direction to the banker to stop payment, the complaint for an offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed on the ground that the bankers endorsement, while returning the cheque, was not on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of the account of the drawer was insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeded the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank. It was pertinently pointed out that the offence under the section could not depend on the endorsement made by the banker while returning the cheque and, if it was established, irrespective of the endorsement made by the banker that, in fact, the cheque was returned unpaid either because the amount of the money standing to the credit of the account of the drawer was insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, the offence would be established."

11.I am with respect in agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by the Division Bench. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge had committed an error of law, though on the basis of some judicial decisions referred to by him in the judgment, and had fallen in an error in allowing the Revision Petitions and directing the dismissal of four complaints lodged by the present petitioner. The said orders deserve to be set aside. Accordingly, the Criminal Application Nos. 1073/1992 to 1076/1992 deserve to be granted and the appropriate directions deserve to be issued. Hence the order :

Order

Criminal Application Nos. 1073/1992 to 1076/1992 are allowed. The impugned orders dated 10-8-1992 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No. 194/1990; 195/1990; 196/1990 and 262/1989, are set aside. The dismissal of the complaints in RCC Nos. 409/1989; 5/1990 (now 253/90); 12/1990 (now 252/90) and 9/1990 (now 248/90) is set aside. The aforesaid cases are directed to be reinstated to the file and to be disposed of according to law. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 in all the Applications, are directed to appear before the 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad on 19-1-1993 at 11.00 a.m.

Applications disposed of. Rule made absolute.