( 1 ) ). This group of applications filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure raises an interesting question of interpretation of Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for brevity ). The question raised is as to whether penal or criminal liability sought to be imposed on the drawer of a cheque by Section 138 of the said Act is limited to two specified cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker or whether section would apply and inability could be imposed in all cases of dishonour of the cheque by the banker for reasons referable either to insufficiency of funds in the account from which the cheque is drawn or whether the drawer has failed to make arrangement for the funds so that cheque may be honoured. In other words the question is one of interpretation of a penal provision in the statute should it be strictly construed so as to confine operation of Section 138 to the cases of dishonour of the cheque to two specified classes of cases or should it be liberally construed consistent with the legislative intent and object sought to be achieved by Legislature while introducing Chap. XVII in the said Act so that legislative exercise is not frustrated ?

( 2 ) ). In all these cases the complaints are instituted by the Indian Overseas Bank against the petitioners-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the said Act mainly on the ground that the various cheques issued by the petitioners-accused in favour of complainant-Bank were returned unpaid with the bankers endorsement Account is closed and therefore offence is made out. In all cases on prima facie satisfaction the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued process under Section 138 of the said Act and thereupon petitioners-accused have moved this Court for quashing the process and proceeding. Since all these cases raise common questions of law on more or less identical facts they are heard and disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) ). For the purpose of this judgment facts of Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 117/92 are stated and facts in all cases are more or less identical.

( 4 ) ). It appears that the Indian Overseas Bank-the original complainant instituted Criminal Complaint No. 4160/91 in the Trial Court against the petitioner-accused for offences punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 The case of the complainant in the complaint was that the accused No. 1 was a partnership firm of which accused Nos. 2 and 3 were partners. The accused had accepted hundis drawn by M/s. Prakash Tej Udyog a customer of the Bank. The hundis were duly accepted and demand was made by the bank from the accused on due dates. The accused did not make the payment. It was the further case of the bank that after repeated demands the accused had given the following cheques : @@@ cheque No Date Amount 904737 20 25 146 904738 18 25 147 904739 24 37 955 904740 22 5 37 956 904741 28 33 688 904742 26 33 689 - @@@ it was the further case of the bank that the accused had written a letter which was received by the bank on 24-4-1991 stating that he has some dispute about the quality of Yarn of M/s Prakash Tej Udyog and therefore the bank should not present the said cheques given by the accused to the bank. It is the case of the bank that this was nothing but a device adopted by the accused with a view to delaying the payment to the bank and therefore the bank presented the said cheques for clearance before the Bank of Maharashtra on 28 Said cheques were returned with endorsement account is closed. The bank has thereafter written a letter dated 30-5-91 to the accused regarding return of cheques and called upon the accused to pay the amounts of cheques with overdue interest. Even after receipt of said letter the accused persons did not care to pay the amount. A legal notice wa