Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. This case involves a queer situation when a “Pay Order” was disho­noured by the drawer bank. The holder thereof (Punjab and Sindh Bank) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short `the Act’). The drawer bank and its officials have been arraigned as accused in the complaint. But a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay quashed the complaint mainly on the premise that the instrument (described as the “pay order”) is not a cheque. The Punjab and Sindh Bank has filed this appeal in challenge of the afore­said order of the High Court. Besides the premise stated above learned single Judge of the High Court adopted two more grounds for quashing the complaint. One among them is that even assuming that the instru­ment is a cheque it was crossed and hence the complainant-bank should only have collected the amount and remitted the same to the account of the person shown as payee in the instrument. The other is, the com­plainant was not a `holder in due course’ inasmuch as no endorsement was made on the instrument in the manner prescribed under Section 50 of the Act and hence the complainant has no ­locus standi t