IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.268 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 21, 2010 Vinod Kumar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Gurdeep Singh .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) It seems that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent for commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, `the Act’). The respondent was summoned by the Trial Magistrate. Order of summoning was challenged by the respondent. Petition filed by the respondent has been allowed and the order of summoning has been set aside vide impugned order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur. On perusal of Para 9 of the impugned order, I find that the summoning order Crl. Revision No.268 of 2010 [2] has been set aside on the ground that Memo Exh.CW-3 issued by State Bank of Patiala informed the complainant, “ambiguous account number”. Taking it into account, the Court has returned a finding that no offence under Section 138 of the Act is made out. A perusal of provisions of Section 138 of the Act indicates that an offence under the said provision is committed, “....is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence.....”. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show to this Court that when the cheque is returned with the endorsement “ambiguous account number”, Section 138 of the Act would be attracted. In view of the above, no illegality can be traced in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) April 21, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?