JUDGMENT

K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J. - The complainant in S.T.C. No. 32/90 on the file of the Judicial first Class Magistrate's Court, Cherthala is the appellant.

2. The appellant filed the complaint before the lower Court alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. According to him, the respondent borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from him on 15-7-1989 form his house and issued a cheque for Rs. 10,000/- drawn on District Treasury Savings Bank, Alappuzha and when the cheque was presented for encashment on 26-12-1989 it was bounced. It is also alleged that when the appellant came to know about Ute dishonour of the cheque on 9-1-1990 he caused to send registered notice to the respondent on 18-1-1990 Informing about the dishonour of the cheque and calling upon him to pay the amount. But that notice was returned un-served and again he caused to send another notice dated 3-1-1990. But the respondent has not repaid the amount.

The lower Court after trial by judgment dated 27-9-1990 found the respondent not guilty of the offence alleged gains him and acquitted him and set him at liberty. The judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

3. The facts that the respondent has borrowed Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant and issued Ext. P-1 cheque in favour of the appellant and on presentation for encashment it was dishonoured are not in dispute. In Ext. D-1 memo returning Ext. P-1 cheque on 9-1-1990 it is stated that the cheque is out of date and refer to drawer. P.W. 3 who is the Senior Accountant in the District Treasury. Alappuzha has deposed that there was no sufficient amount to the credit of the respondent to honour the cheque and on the date of issue of Ext. P-1 cheque viz. 15-7-1989 the amount lying to the credit of the respondent was Rs. 123/- and Ext. P-1 was returned from the Treasury due to two reasons viz. refer to drawer and cheque is out of date. The respondent has no case that there was sufficient fund to honour the cheque in his credit when it was presented for encashment.

4. As per the Treasury Code Vol. 1 R. 245(b) a cheque shall remain current only for three months from the date of issue. Therefore, the treasury dishonoured Ext. P-1 cheque, which was Issued on 15-7-1989 being out of time when It was presented by the appellant for encashment on 26-12-1989.

5. The Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the dishonour of the cheque on the ground that the cheque was out of time since the cheque drawn on Treasury Saving Bank is current only for three month from the date of as against the Banking practice of the currency of cheques for six months from the date of issue, and the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act are illegal and unsustainable. The Treasury Code Is framed by the Government of Kerala as empowered under Art. 283 (2) of the Constitution and promulgated by the Governor of Kerala by notification No. 54282 dated 6-4-1983.

As per List 1 which Is styled as Union List in 7th Schedule of the Constitution, all the items mentioned therein fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Union of India and item 45 in the List I of Schedule 7 is Banking and Entry 46 therein is Bill of Exchange, Cheques etc. Therefore, the Counsel for the appellant argued that banking comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of India and the same can be, be regulated only by the Government of India and Reserve Bank of India.

6. The counsel for the appellant further argued that the Treasury Code is intended for transactions in Government money only and not for banking business for the, public and if the Treasuries conduct banking business and entire rules and regulations regarding bank including those rules applicable to cheques etc. contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act and the Banking Practice should be followed by the Treasuries. According to him, though the Treasury can regulate the period of validity of cheques, it will bind only the Treasuries and persons who