Special leave is being sought for filling an appeal against the order of acquittal in a criminal prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short 'the Act'). Learned magistrate, who acquitted the accused, relied on the decision of this Court in Kumaresan v. Ameerappa (1991 (1) Ker LT 893) and found that the complaint filed on a second cause of action with the cheque is not maintainable.

2. In the trial court counsel for the accused cited a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Syed Rasool and Sons v. Alidas and Co. (1992 Cri LJ 4048) and another decision of the Bombay High Court in Rakesh Porwall v. Narayan Joglekar (1993 Cri LJ 680) in which a different view has been adopted from that of Kumaresan's case. But learned magistrate expressed his difficulty to follow those decisions since Kumaresan's decision has been rendered by the High Court of Kerala.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, therefore, addressed arguments of persuading me to refer this case to a Division Bench for reconsideration of the dictum laid down in Kumaresan's case in the light of the aforementioned two decisions.

4. Facts of this case,