The complainant is the appellant. The complaint filed by him alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act against the accused ended in acquittal.

2. The complainant alleged that the accused had issued cheques for Rs.90,000/- to him for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. The said cheques when presented for encashment were dishonoured by the bank of the ground of insufficiency of funds. Notice of demand was issued as insisted by Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It was duly received and acknowledged. But no payment was made as demanded. It is in these circumstances that the complainant came to court with this complaint.

3. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The accused entered appearance and denied the offence alleged against him. Thereupon the complainant examined himself as PW1. An official of the drawe bank was examined as PW2. Exts.P1 to P13 were marked.

4. The accused denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence and which were put to him. He admitted that the cheques were written on cheque leaves issued to him by his bank to operate his account. He also admitted his signature in the cheques. He further conceded that he had handed over the cheques to the complainant. But he took up the stand that they were not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability. According to him those cheques were handed over only as security for the due payment of amounts which may become due from certain other persons with whom the complainant had entered into financial transactions as introduced by the accused. No defence witness was examined. Ext.D1 was marked.

5. The learned Magistrate on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the complainant has not succeeded in proving the offence alleged against the accused. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of acquittal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and respondent/accused have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned verdict of not guilty and acquittal. The acquittal is primarily based on two circumstances. They are;

(1) The averments in the complaint do not disclose that the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds.

(2) Ext.P13, the extract of the account is not duly certified as insisted by Section 2(8) of the Banker's Book Evidence Act.

7. The first ground for dismissal of the complaint is that the complaint does not reveal that the dishonour was on one of the two grounds specified under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. It is by now trite that the complaint cannot be read ritualistically or in a pedantic manner. The complainant undoubtedly averred that the cheque was dishonoured by the bank and that such dishonour was on the ground "refer to drawer". It is true that in the complaint it is not specifically averred that this ground "refer to drawer" means and implies insufficiency of funds. But in this context it must alertly be noted that along with the complaint the complainant had produced the registered notice of demand, Ext.P10. In the said notice, Ext.P10 it is very clearly averred that the cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement "refer to drawer which means that you had no funds in your bank". The complaint must further be read, it is by now trite, along with the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate. In the sworn statement the complainant had clearly stated that the dishonour was on the ground of insufficiency of funds. It is by now trite that the expression "refer to drawer" is nothing but a curteous expression employed by the bank to convey insufficiency of funds. Averments in the complaint read along with the documents produced with the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant recorded by the learned Magistrate can leave no doubt in any prudent mind that the allegation was speci