Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.

This revision petition is filed by the convicted accused. The respondent is the complainant.

The petitioner is tried for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned V.J.M.F.C., Mangalore, in C.C.No.11/2003. After recording the evidence and after hearing the parties, the trial Court by its order dated 29th October 2004, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant, with default clause. The judgment and order of the trial Court is confirmed by the Sessions Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, in Criminal Appeal No.385/2004, dated 15th February 2006.

.2. Case of the complainant in brief is that: the accused has borrowed a loan of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.6,000/- on 210.1993 and 12.1993 respectively from the complainant, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 23% p.a. Towards repayment of the said loan, the accused has issued a cheque Ex. P1 dated 11.1996 drawn on Mangala Credit Co-operative Society Ltd., Kodialbail, Mangalore, for Rs.24,168/- in favour of the complainant. On presentation, the said cheque was returned with an endorsement of "insufficient funds". After complying with all the necessary statutory requirements, the complaint came to be lodged. The complainant got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 15 exhibits. On behalf of the accused, two witnesses are examined, including the accused and two documents were got marked.

3. As aforementioned, both the Courts below have concurrently held against the accused and convicted for the offence under Section. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Questioning both the Judgment and orders, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

.4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the cheque is not presented to a Bank, but was presented to a Co-operative Society and as the cheque was not presented to the Banker, the proceedings vitiate. The very contention was raised by the petitioner herein before the Courts below. The Courts below on evaluating the material on record, have concluded on facts that the Mangala Credit Co-operative Society is not a merely a Co-operative Society, but it is a Co-operative Society doing Banking business also.

5. In this context, it is relevant to note the definition of "Banker" as found in Section 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The word "Banker" is defined as under:

Section 3: "Banker - Banker includes any person acting as a Banker and any post office savings bank."

Thus, the scope of Banker" under the Negotiable Instruments Act is so wide and enhanced that it includes any person acting as a Banker. In fact, it also includes the post office savings Bank. Banking, need not necessarily be a business run with a profit motive. As a matter of fact, Banking is an evolutionary concept. It cannot be said that bodies which carry on business not with a profit motive, but with the incidents with which a business of Banking is associated, are not Banks. What makes a person a Banker is not what he does with the money of which he obtains the use by lending it at interest or by investing it, but by the terms upon which he obtains deposits of money from the Banking customers. If it was the intention of the legislature to restrict the meaning of Banker as per Banking Regulation Act, a specific provision would have been made in the Negotiable Instruments Act to define the word "Banker" as any person regulated by Banking Regulation Act. On the other hand, the legislature in its wisdom has enhanced the scope of the term "Banker" Linder Negotiable Instruments Act. The scope of term "Banker" under Negotiable Instruments Act is beyond the meaning included in the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. While defining the word "Banker", the language employed in the Section is "includes" which meant to ensure that not only Bank, Banker, or Banking institutions incorporated by the Act