JUDGMENT - S.S. DANI, J.:---These four revision petitions are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment, inasmuch as, they involve common questions of law and facts. 2. Criminal Revision application No. 243 of 1991 is filed against the order dated 5-1-1991 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amalner in Criminal Revision application No. 59 of 1990 quashing the issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Criminal Revision Application No. 224 is also directed against the order dated 5-1-1991 passed by the same Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 57 of 1990 quashing the similar issuance of process. In these two criminal revision applications present petitioner Omprakash is the original complainant, while the present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the original accused persons. 3. Criminal Revision Application No. 245 of 1991 is directed against the order dated 5-1-1991 passed by the same Court in Criminal Revision Application No. 58 of 1990, while the remaining Criminal Revision Application No. 246 of 1991 is against the order of the same Court of the same date in Criminal Revision Application No. 56 of 1990. In Criminal Revision Application Nos. 245 of 1991 and 246 of 1991, the petitioner is the original complainant while the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the original accused persons. In all these proceedings, both accused are the same. The accused have taken a hand loan from their respective complainant and had issued four different cheques of different amounts for the repayment of the said loan amounts. In all these cases, cheques were presented to the concerned bank; they were returned as unpaid with endorsement that account was closed by the drawer. The original complainant Omprakash Bhojraj, therefore, filed two Criminal Cases bearing Nos. 153 of 1989 and 154 of 1989 alleging the offences punishable under section 420 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. Similarly, the other complainant Pramod Bhojraj also filed Criminal Cases No. 151 of 1989 and 153 of 1989 in respect of the dishonoured cheques alleging the similar offences against the accused. 4. In all these four criminal cases the trial Magistrate ordered the issuance of process both under sections 420 read with section 34, I.P.C. and section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 4. In all these four criminal cases the trial Magistrate ordered the issuance of process both under sections 420 read with section 34, I.P.C. and section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. These accused then took up the matters in four criminal revision applications before the Sessions Court at Amalner. All the four criminal revision applications came to be allowed by an order dated 5-1-1991 and the Sessions Court partly allowed the revisions and quashed the issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but maintained the issuance of process only under section 420 read with section 34, Indian Penal Code against these accused. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Sessions Court in respect of the setting aside the issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the original complaints have filed these four revision applications to this Court. Inasmuch as, all these revision applications involve common questions of law and facts, and, as the original matters have been decided by a single similar order, all these four revision applications are being heard and decided simultaneously by this common judgment. 6. The only short point involved in all these proceedings is whether the complainants proved a case against these accused for issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Before coming to the rival contentions, it be noted that, admittedly, the accused persons have issued four different cheques with respect to the four hand loan transactions and all these cheques have been admittedly returned by the bank as unpaid on the ground that the accounts were closed by the drawers i.e. these accused. 7. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which has been recently introduced and brought into force with effect from 1-4-1998, makes the dishonour of a cheque penal. According to the said section, a cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount and the said cheque is returned by the bank unpaid because of the insufficiency of the amount standing to the credit of that account; or, because the amount of cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. Thus, a dishonour of a cheque has been made penal by the said section only when the dishonour is effected either because of insufficiency of the amount or because it exceeds the amount which is arranged to be paid from that account. The Additional Sessions Judge has held in all these cases that, the penal provisions of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not attracted, inasmuch as, admittedly, the cheques were returned unpaid because of closure of account. 8. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners - complainants that, the new provision of section 138 has been introduced so as to prevent the mala fide actions on the part of the drawers to issue the cheques which, they knew, will be dishonoured by the bank. It is submitted by Shri Navandar, the learned Advocate for the petitioners that, the dishonour of a cheque may be by any reason and it is not only under the two contingencies mentioned in section 138 of the said Act that the dishonour of a cheque can be held to be penal. In other words, it is submitted that, whenever a cheque is dishonoured, the drawer of a cheque incurs the penal law under section 138. It is submitted, however, on behalf of the respondents that, section 138 would apply only in case the cheque is dishonoured because of one of the two contingencies mentioned in it, and as such the issuance of process under the said section has been rightly set aside and quashed by the Additional Sessions Judge. 9. The plain reading of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear that, the words "either because of the amount standing to the credit of that account is insufficient or that it exceeds the amount..." have been specifically used. It would, therefore, mean that only two contingencies are contemplated and as such, the words-"..either..or" have been used. It is, therefore, clear that the cheque should be dishonoured either for the insufficiency of the amount or, because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. No third contingency or eventuality has been contemplated and the specific clear wording of section 138 eliminates any third contingency than mentioned in the section itself. It is, therefore, clear that the cheque should be dishonoured either for the insufficiency of the amount or, because it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account. No third contingency or eventuality has been contemplated and the specific clear wording of section 138 eliminates any third contingency than mentioned in the section itself. It need not be stated that the cheque can be dishonoured for so many reasons and there may be so many eventualities in which the payee is denied payment by the bank. For example, mentioning the date incorrectly or some corrections not initialled or the difference in between the amount mentioned in figures and words are certain other contingencies in which the cheque will be definitely dishonoured and would be returned as unpaid. It is not in respect of any of these contingencies that the dishonour of a cheque has been made penal under section 138 of the said Act. The submissions on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the dishonour as in the present case because of the closure of the amount should also be held as penal, cannot, therefore, be accepted. 10. On behalf of the respondents reliance is placed on a ruling reported in 1991(1) Crimes 227, (G.F. Hunasikathimath v. State of Karnataka)1. The facts involved in the said case are exactly identical with the facts involved in the case at hand. In the said ruling also the cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "account closed". It is held that no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be held as disclosed in such a case. It is further laid down that the penal provisions has to be construed strictly and not liberally and, thus, a cheque dishonoured on the ground of "account closed" cannot be construed as dishonoured for "insufficiency of funds" or "exceeding arrangement" as laid in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In my view, the said ruling lays down the correct position of law. If any other eventuality than mentioned in section 138 of the said Act was also to be considered as one giving rise to a penal action, the wording of section 138 of the said Act would have been used in that way. In my view, the said ruling lays down the correct position of law. If any other eventuality than mentioned in section 138 of the said Act was also to be considered as one giving rise to a penal action, the wording of section 138 of the said Act would have been used in that way. The strict construction of the specific wording of section 138 of the said Act makes the dishonour of a cheque penal only in two contingencies that is, insufficiency of funds and excess arrangements; and as such in no other case the dishonour of a cheque can be held to be penal under the said section. The maxim "expressum facit cessare tacitum" enunciates the principle that the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. 11. Coming to the facts of the present case it is undisputed that all the four cheques issued by the respondents towards the payment of the hand loans have been returned as unpaid not on any of the two grounds mentioned in section 138 of the Act but on the ground of closure of account, which is not covered by the eventualities mentioned in the section. This being so, the provisions of section 138 of the Act cannot be attracted and the dishonour of a cheque on the ground of the closure of the account cannot afford ground for taking penal action under the said section. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the object of enacting section 138 of the said Act should not be overlooked and the dishonour of a cheque should not be allowed to go unpunished. The submissions cannot be accepted for invoking the provisions of the section 138 of the said Act. The process has already been issued in respect of these four transactions against these accused for offences punishable under section 420 read with section 34, Indian penal Code and the issuance of the said process has been confirmed by the Sessions Court and has also become final in the absence of any revision filed against the said order by these accused. It, therefore, cannot be said that the dishonour of the four cheques by these accused has been allowed to go scot free. It, therefore, cannot be said that the dishonour of the four cheques by these accused has been allowed to go scot free. The only limited question in this petition is in respect of issuance of process under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Additional Sessions Judge was right and justified in holding that the issuance of process for offence under section 138 of the said Act by the Judicial Magistrate was not proper. The Additional Sessions Judge was, therefore, right in setting aside and quashing the issuance of the said process. The order of the Sessions Court is neither improper, illegal nor erroneous. All these revision applications therefore, are devoid of substance and will have to be rejected. 12. In the result, Criminal Revision Application Nos. 243 of 1991, 244 of 1991, 245 of 1991 and 246 of 1991 are hereby dismissed. Application dismissed. -----