( 1 ) PETITIONER WAS THE COMPLAINANT AND respondents 2 TO 4 WERE ACCUSED IN P. C. R. NO. 88/89 ON THE FILE OF THE METROPOLITAN magistrate, IV COURT, BANGALORE CITY (FOR short 'the MAGISTRATE' ). IT AROSE OUT OF A private COMPLAINT PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER -COMPLAINANT UNDER SEC. 200 CR. P. C. ALLEGING THAT RESPONDENTS NOS. 2 TO 4 are LIABLE TO BE PUNISHED UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT AS amended BY THE BANKING PUBLIC FINANCIAL institutions AND NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS laws (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 (ACT 66/ 1988) (FOR SHORT 'the ACT' ).

( 2 ) THE CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT ASALLEGED IN HIS COMPLAINT WAS THAT RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'the ACCUSED') ISSUED A CHEQUE (EX. P. 3) for RS. 1000/- IN HIS FAVOUR IN RESPECT OF certain AMOUNT THEY HAD RECEIVED UNDER AN agreement MARKED AS EX. P. 1. WHEN THE said CHEQUE WAS DULY PRESENTED, IT WAS returned BY THE BANK WITH THE ENDORSEMENT "account CLOSED". THEREFORE, THE accused HAVE COMITTED AN OFFENCE UNDER section 138 OF THE ACT.

( 3 ) AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSELFOR THE COMPLAINANT ON THE POINT OF MAINTAINABILITY of THE COMPLAINT, THE LEARNED magistrate BY ORDER DATED 15-11-1989 came TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DISHONOURING of A CHEQUE ON THE GROUND OF "closer OF HIS account" BY THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE DOES not CONSTITUTE AN OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE ACT AS THE SAID SECTION CONTEMPLATES dishonouring OF A CHEQUE EITHER FOR want OF FUNDS OR FOR EXCEEDING ARRANGEMENTS made. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, the LEARNED MAGISTRATE HELD THAT NO SUFFICIENT material IS MADE OUT BY THE COMPLAINANT to PROCEED AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR AN offence PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 138 OF the ACT AND, CONSEQUENTLY, DISMISSED THE complaint UNDER SECTION 203 CR. P. C. IT is THE SAID ORDER THAT IS SOUGHT TO BE QUASHED by THE PETITIONER BY FILING THIS CRIMINAL petition UNDER SECTION 482 CR. P. C.

( 4 ) WHEN THIS PETITION CAME UP FORCONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS COURT ON 31-8-90, sri P. MUNIKRISHNA, APPEARING FOR THE petitioner, REPRESENTED THAT THERE IS EVERY likelihood OF THE MATTER BEING SETTLED OUT of COURT IF TWO WEEKS' TIME IS GIVEN. BUT, the LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPT. 2 SUBMITTED that HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT THE ALLEGED settlement BUT HE HAD NO OBJECTION for GRANTING TWO WEEKS' TIMA. THEREFORE, the CASE IS ADJOURNED BY TWO WEEKS. BUT, none APPEARED FOR THE PETITIONER-COMPLAINANT on 21-9-90, AGAIN ON 8-10-90 AND again ON 11-10-90 AND TO-DAY ALSO. THEREFORE, SRI. S. M. HEGDE, LEARNED COUNSEL for RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 - ACCUSED IS heard.

( 5 ) AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THELEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED. SECTION 138 OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR PUNISHING THE drawer OF A CHEQUE WHICH IS DISHONOURED only UNDER TWO EVENTUALITIES. THEY ARE (I) insufficiency OF THE AMOUNT IN THE ACCOUNT of THE DRAWER OF THE CHEQUE TO HONOUR THE cheque OR THE AMOUNT COVERED BY THE cheque EXCEEDING THE AMOUNT ARRANGED TO be PAID FROM THAT ACCOUNT BY AN AGREEMENT made WITH THAT BANK AND NOT ON ANY other GROUND ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SEVERAL eventualities UNDER WHICH A CHEQUE CAN be DISHONOURED AND ONE SUCH EVENTUALITY is THE CLOSER OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE DRAWER of THE CHEQUE IN THE PARTICULAR BANK ON which HE HAS DRAWN THE CHEQUE SUBSEQUENT to THE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUE. IT IS well SETTLED THAT PENAL PROVISIONS WILL have TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AND NOT LIBERALLY. IN THIS CONNECTION, RELIANCE WAS placed BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE accused ON A RECENT DIVISION BENCH DECISION of THIS COURT IN T. E. C. H. SOCIETY ltd. , V SC. ST. MT. and BACKWARD clauses IMPROVEMENT CENTRE (ILR 1990 karnataka, 3320) IN WHICH A DIVISION bench OF THIS COURT PRESIDED OVER BY THE hon'ble THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS OBSERVED AT page 3388 AS UNDER :" (F ). THO COURT WILL NOT EXTEND THO law BEYOND ITS MEANING TO TAKE CERE of A BROADER LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE. HERE "strict" MEANS MERELY THAT THE COURT will REFRAIN FROM EXERCISING ITS CREATIVE function TO APPLY THE RULE ANNOUNCED in THE STATUTE TO SITUATIONS NOT COVERED by IT