Thomas, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This case involves a queer situation when a "Pay Order" was dishonoured by the drawer bank. The holder thereof (Punjab and Sindh Bank) filed a complaint under S. 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The drawer bank and its officials have been arraigned as accused in the complaint. But a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay quashed the complaint mainly on the premises that the instrument (described as the "pay order") is not a cheque. The Punjab and Sindh Bank has filed this appeal in challenge of the aforesaid order of the High Court. Besides the premise stated above learned single Judge of the High Court adopted two more grounds for quashing the complaint. One among them is that even assuming that the instrument is a cheque it was crossed and hence the complainant-bank should only have collected the amount and remitted the same to the account of the person shown as payee in the instrument. The other is, the complainant was not a 'holder in due course' inasmuch as no endorsement was made on the instrument in the manner prescribed under S. 50 of the Act and hence the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.
(3.) The short facts leading to the filing of the complaint are these : The first accused in the complaint is a cooperative bank. It drew the Pay Order on 18-12-1992 in a sum of Rs. 48.40 lacs, the relevant inscriptions of which are the following : "Payee's account only "To pay Punjab and Sindh Bank-M/s. Poise Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. or order". According to the appellant the said Pay Order was got assigned to the complainant-bank from M/s. Poise Leasing and Finance Company Ltd. When the instrument was presented for clearance before the first accused bank on 18-12-1992 it was returned with the remarks "funds uncleared". It was again presented on 6-1-1993 and then it was returned dishonoured with the remarks "drawee bank's funds with our bank i.e. sponsoring bank, are insufficient". This was followed by sending a notice to the first accused bank as contemplated in S. 138 of the Act. Since the amount was not paid within the statutory period a complaint was filed on 9-3-1993.;