K.T. Thomas, J. - This revision is at the Instance of a complainant whose complaint was dismissed by a judicial magistrate of first class after issuing process to the accused. Learned magistrate has presumably acted under the ratio laid down in K.M. Mathew v. State of Kerala1.

2. The complaint was filed on the main allegation that the accused committed the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to the accused. After entering appearance accused raised a contention that the complaint is liable to be dismissed since no offence was made out in the complaint. Learned magistrate accepted the contention by holding that there is no averment in the complaint that cheque was bounced due to insufficiency of amount in the account.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner contended that if the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence can be made out from the complaint in spite of absence of explicit averments in that regard, the court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence. He cited the observations of this court in Iqbal v. Uthaman2 that a meticulous scrutiny of the c