( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge remanding the complaint to the Metropolitan Magistrate. Mr. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has argued that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "act") is attracted only when the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid pursuant to some agreement with the Bank. In no other contingency according to Mr. Gupta, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act can be filed. He, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, has argued that the cheque when returned on account of stop payment, the provisions of Section 138 of the Act will not beapplicable. In support of his contentions, he has cited a. judgment of Kerala High Court in Bhageerathy v. eena, II (1992) Banking Cases 520, a judgment of Madras High Court in Mrs. R. Jayalkshmi v. Mrs. Rashida, I (1992) Banking Cases 259 and a decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Abdul Samad v. Satya Narayan Mahawar, II (1990) Banking Cases 305.

( 2 ) ANOTHER contention of the learned Counsel for the pet