Basant, J.

i) Does a cheque cease to be a cheque merely because the drawer raises a dispute about the execution of the cheque and the genuineness of the signature in the cheque?

ii) Does it cease to be a cheque when a banker constrained to dishonour the cheque of a valued customer instead of returning it with the endorsement that there is no sufficient funds includes the reason that the signature differs?

iii) Is an obliging banker making such an endorsement to be reckoned as the final arbiter of culpability in a prosecution for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

iv) Does not the court have jurisdictional competence in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to ascertain the real reason for the dishonour of the cheque notwithstanding the purported reasons stated by the Banker ?

v) Does the decision in Thomas Varghese v. P.Jerome [1992 CRI.L.J.380] require or warrant reconsideration?

vi) Is there a conflict between the decision in Rejikumar v. Sukumaran [2002 KHC 409] and the decision in M.I. Kumaran v. Abdul Karim and another, [2006(1)K.L.D.(Cri)811].

2. These interesting questions arise for consideration in this revision petition which has come up before us on a reference by a learned single Judge, who appears to have doubted the correctness of the decision in Thomas Varghese (Supra).

3. We have heard the senior Counsel Sri. G Janardhana Kurup for the revision petitioner/accused and Ms.Saritha David Chungath for the respondent/complainant. The parties shall be referred to in this order as accused and complainant respectively for the sake of easy reference.

4. The facts scenario which is not in dispute can be summarised as follows:

5. Four cheques each for Rs.5.5 lakhs marked as Ext.P1 respectively in the four cases which have been disposed of by a common judgment are the subject matter of these prosecutions. A monetary transaction between the parties is admitted and is not disputed. That there is an undischarged liability for the accused to pay amounts to the complainant is admitted. That the cheques in question are drawn on cheque leaves issued by the Banker of the accused to the accused to operate his Bank account is again admitted. That the complainant is an affluent businessman and the accused is an educated cine artist is also accepted and conceded. That there was correspondence between them about the discharge of the liability and time required for discharge of the liability is also admitted. That the cheques were successively presented for encashment and were dishonoured is admitted. That the cheques were finally presented for encashment and were dishonoured on 08/03/1999 is also admitted. That all the four cheques were dishonoured on 08/03/1999 on the twin grounds -"signature differs and funds insufficient" is again admitted. That the statutory time table has been scrupulously followed after that last dishonour is also conceded. That there was no funds available in the account to honour the cheque on the date of dishonour (8/3/1999) is also not disputed. That the accused had come to know of the earlier attempts for presentation of the cheque and dishonour of the same prior to its final presentation is also conceded. That the accused had not taken any steps after coming to know of such earlier instances of presentation and dishonour is also not disputed. Till now, no action has been taken against the complainant by the accused for alleged misuse of the cheques and that is also not disputed.

6. To the controversy now. The complainant alleged that the cheques were issued to him for the due discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. According to the complainant, the accused owed an amount of Rs.20 lakhs. It was not repaid in time. For return of the said amount of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest which was fixed at Rs.2 lakhs, four cheques each for Rs.5.5 lakhs (total Rs. 22 lakhs) were allegedly issued by the accused to the complainant. Those cheque