The court upheld that preliminary satisfaction of allegations, not detailed merits, suffices for cognizance under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

1. This is a revision filed by the accused against whom a private complaint was filed u/s. 420 I.P.C. and S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), challenging taking cognizance of the offence by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hoshangabad by his order dated 9-10-91 in Cr. Case No. 141/1991.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the order of the learned Magistrate does not disclose the date of the cheque the amount for which the cheque was issued, the date on which the cause of action has arisen and hence such a cryptic order is liable to be set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the non - applicant complainant, on the other hand, submitted that the applicant had issued a cheque for Rs. 3,08,275.00 on 14th February, 1991; that when the cheque was presented to the Central Bank of India, Hoshangabad Branch, it was returned on 30-3-1991 with the endorsement 'referred to drawer' : that thereupon the non - applicant gave a notice to the Applicant, as required under S.138 proviso (b) of the Act demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque and that having waited for 15 days after issue of the notice and as there was no reply from the applicant, the complaint was filed on 23-5-1991, within one month from the date of the accrual of cause of action.

4. The fact of the non - applicant having issued a notice mentioning on the facts and demanding payment of the amount covered by the cheque is not denied. That being the case, the applicant was put on due notice through the registered notice about all the relevant fact and also the fact of the dishonur of the cheque with the endorsement 'referred to drawer'. Basing on these facts, if the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence and issued process to the applicant, it cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has acted without any material. Apart from the complaint, the relevant material was placed before him and basing on that material, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. The mere fact that the order dated 9-10-1991 does not contain the amount covered by the cheque and the date on which the cheque was presented will not have any relevance so long as the applicant was made aware of the facts by issuing a notice, as requiring under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act .

5. As held by the Supreme Court in Smt. Nagawa v. Veerappa , AIR 1976 SC 1947 : 1976 CriLJ 1533 at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is mainly concerned with the allegations made in the complaint or the evidence led in support of the same and he is only to be prima facie satisfied whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. It is not the provision of the Magistrate to enter into a detailed discussion of the merits or demerits of the case. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court cannot go into the above aspects in its revisional jurisdiction, which is a very limited one.

6. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant is that there was no proof before the learned Magistrate that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds A Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held in Syed Rasool and Sons v. Alidas and Co. , 1992 CriLJ 4048 that the endorsement made by the banker while returning the cheque unpaid is neither relevant nor decisive and it is a matter of evidence to be collected in the trial to find out as to why the cheque was dishonoured. Following the above decision of the A.P. High Court and also the Division Bench decisions of Bombay High Court and Kerala High Court reported in Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal v. Narayan Dhondu Jo