ORDER 1. The respondent, which is M.P. Financial Corporation advanced a loan of Rs. 4 1akhs to M/s. Suraj Fabricators, owned by Smt. Sarojini Agrawal (Proprietor). Her husband Shri Ashok Agrawal, is the guarantor. Certain cheques were issued by the borrower. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured one after another. A complaint was filed by the financial corporation (Annexure P-2). In paragraph 4 of the complaint it has been stated that the accused persons in repayment of loan issued a Cheque of Rs. 50,000/- bearing no. 0244410 dated 21-9-2002 duly signed by them in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was drawn on Sarguja Kshetriya Gramina Bank, Ambikapur. The complainant deposited the said Cheque on 24-9-2002 in its account holding with the Union Bank of India. Thereafter, it was informed by Letter dated 26-9-2002 of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramina Bank alongwith letter dated 1-10-2002 of Union Bank of India, Bilaspur that the Cheque issued by the accused persons was dishonoured on the ground of payment stopped by the drawer. Thereafter the complainant sent a demand notice by Regd. Post with Acknowledgement Due, which was received by the accused person and the guarantor on 7-10-2002. Inspite of that the accused persons did not pay the amount of the said cheque. 2. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, it has been further stated that the accused persons in repayment of loan issued another Cheque of Rs. 50,000/ - bearing no. 0244411 dated 10-10-2002 duly signed by them in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was drawn on Sarguja Kshetriya Gramina Bank, Ambikapur Branch. The complainant deposited the said cheque in its account holding with the Union Bank of India, Bilaspur Branch. It was informed by letter dated 16-10-2002 of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramina Bank a10ngwith a Letter dated 19-10-2002 of the Union Bank of India that the Cheque issued by the accused persons was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Thereafter, on 28/31-10-2002 the complainant sent a demand notice by Regd. Post with Acknowledgement Due, which was received by the accused person and the Guarantor on 1-11-2002. Inspite of that, the accused persons did not pay the amount of Cheque. 3. The complainant examined the witness one Thomas Mathew, the Branch Manager of the concerned Financial Corporation. Annexure P-4 is the copy of the statement made by this witness. Post with Acknowledgement Due, which was received by the accused person and the Guarantor on 1-11-2002. Inspite of that, the accused persons did not pay the amount of Cheque. 3. The complainant examined the witness one Thomas Mathew, the Branch Manager of the concerned Financial Corporation. Annexure P-4 is the copy of the statement made by this witness. He stated that their Bank has given a Cheque to the accused Company. It was to be re-paid in instalments. He stated that on 21-9-2002 he received a Cheque for Rs. 50,000/- dated 219-2002 drawn on Sarguja Kshetriya Gramina Bank, Ambikapur. The said Cheque was deposited in the Union Bank of India, Bilaspur Branch for encashment and the said Cheque was dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. Pursuant thereto the complainant's Bank issued a demand notice by registered post, which was received by the accused on 7-10-2002 Thereafter, the accused had neither replied to the notice nor paid the amount of Cheque. In para 3 of the said statement he stated that again the accused company issued another Cheque of Rs. 50,000/- dated 10-10-2002 in the name of complainant. The said Cheque was deposited with the Union Bank of India, Bilaspur Branch for clearance. The said Cheque was also bounced on the ground of insufficient funds. Even thereafter, the accused did not pay the amount of Cheque nor replied to the notice. He stated that he lodged the complaint alongwith cheque, Bank Memo, copy of the demand notice, postal receipt, acknowledgement receipt. 4. A perusal of the record shows that these Cheques were sent by the accused one after another in the name of respondent! Corporation for discharge of its debt ability and on presentation, these Cheques were bounced on the grounds that the payment stopped by the drawer and insufficient funds respectively. Thereafter notices were issued to the accused. The complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate. 5. After considering the material on record, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence. The accused/applicant did not appear before the Court below and straight - way filed revision against the order dated 13-2-2003 before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all the grounds urged therein and found that prima facie the evidence is against the applicants. 6. The accused/applicant did not appear before the Court below and straight - way filed revision against the order dated 13-2-2003 before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all the grounds urged therein and found that prima facie the evidence is against the applicants. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below was not justified in taking the cognizance and issuing notice. He further submitted that the cheque was dishonoured by the reason of stop payment and as such the same is not covered. So far as this contention is concerned the same has no force in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MM T. C. Ltd. and another Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and another1, where it has been held in paragraph 19 as under: "Just such a contention has been negatived by this Court in the case of Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi. It has been held that even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of 'stop-payment instruction an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act could still be made out. It is held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is attracted in such a case also. The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop-payment instructions by virtue of Section 139 the court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The accused can thus show that the "stop-payment" instructions were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the accused shown that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop-payment notice' had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under Section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused. Thus a court cannot quash a complaint on this ground." A plain reading of the above matter clearly shows that even if the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop-payment instructions, an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act can still be made out. The Court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge of liability or debt either in whole or in part. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The burden of proof would be on the accused and a complaint cannot be quashed on this ground under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. MM T. C. Ltd. and another} (Supra). 7. Earlier, the Supreme Court had also an occasion to deal with similar matter in case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Narender, wherein it has been held that by virtue of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court has to draw a presumption that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge of a debt or liability until the contrary is proved. This Supreme Court further held that at the initial stage of the proceedings the High Court was not justified in entertaining and accepting a plea that there was no debt or liability and thereby quashing the complaint. A similar view has also been taken by Supreme Court in case of K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan3, where again it has been held that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the court has to presume, in a complaint under Section 138, that the cheque had been issued for discharge of a debt or liability. The Supreme Court further held that merely on the basis of averments contained in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability. 8. This court has further gone into the decision of Supreme Court in case of S.A. Nanjundeswara Vs. M.S. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.4. The Supreme Court further held that merely on the basis of averments contained in the petitions filed by them the High Court could not have concluded that there was no existing debt or liability. 8. This court has further gone into the decision of Supreme Court in case of S.A. Nanjundeswara Vs. M.S. Varlak Agrotech Pvt. Ltd.4. In this case the Supreme Court has considered all the aspects and it has been held that the High Court can be justified in quashing the proceedings only if it comes to the conclusion that even the statements taken on the face value do not make out any offence. 9. In case of Raj Lakshmi Mills Vs. Shakti Bhakoos, Supreme Court opined that at the stage of summoning when evidence was yet to be led by the parties, the High Court could not on an assumption of facts come to a finding of fact that the respondent was not responsible for the conduct of the business. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant made another submission that the applicant is the proprietor and Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal is the guarantor and it is Ashok Agrawal who issued the cheque and he has not been made an accused. So far as this contention is concerned, it has no force in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of I.C.D. Limited Vs. Beemna Shabeer andanother. The Supreme Court in paras 10, 11 and 13 of the said judgment has discussed the matter in great detail. It reads as under: "10. The language, however, has been rather specific as regards the intent of the legislature. The commencement of Section stands with the words "where any Cheque". The above noted three words are of extreme significance, in particular, by reason of the user of the word "any" the first three words suggest that in fact for whatever reason if a cheque is drawn on an account maintained by him with a banker in favour of another person for the discharge of any of debt or other liability, the highlighted words if read with the first three words at the commencement of Section 138, leave no manner of doubt that for whatever reason it may be, the liability under this provision cannot be avoided in the event the same stands returned by the banker unpaid. The legislature has been careful enough to record not only discharge in whole or in part of any debt but the same includes other liability as well. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the High Court, neither been dealt with or even referred to in the impugned judgment. 11. The issue as regards the co-extensive liability of the guarantor and the principal debtor, 'in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any discussion therein. The language of the Status depicts the intent of the law makers to the effect that wherever there is a default on the part of one in favour of another and in the event a cheque is issued in discharge pf any debt or other liability there cannot be any restriction or embargo in the matter of application of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act: Any cheque' and 'other liability' are the two key expressions which stands as clarifying the legislative intent so as to bring the factual context within the ambit of the provisions of the Statute. Any contra interpretation would defeat the intent of the legislature. The High Court, it seems, got carried away by the issue of guarantee and guarantor's liability and thus has overlooked the true intent and thus has overlooked the true impact and purport of section 138 of the Act. The judgments recorded in the order of the High Court do not have any relevance in the contextual facts and the same thus does not lend any assistance to the contentions raised by the respondents. 13. In our view the High Court fell into a manifest error and as such the judgment impugned cannot obtain our concurrence. The appeal succeeds and is thus allowed. The order of the learned single Judge stands quashed and the proceeding in ST No. 141/1999 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapurm stands restored and so is the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Emphasis Supplied) The matter is still pending before the trial court. If the applicant considers that it is Shri Ashok Agrawal, who issued the cheque and not the applicant then it is open to the parties to take such steps which are permissible under law. 11. (Emphasis Supplied) The matter is still pending before the trial court. If the applicant considers that it is Shri Ashok Agrawal, who issued the cheque and not the applicant then it is open to the parties to take such steps which are permissible under law. 11. Having thus considered the facts and circumstances and material on record and in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court cited above, no case is made out warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction U/S 482 Cr.P.C. The revision fails and is dismissed. 12. Learned counsel lastly submitted that the inherent powers be ' invoked by this Court in as much as the proceedings be quashed because In his opinion the hearing of the trial takes long time. Prima facie this Court has found that certain time will take place. Counsel prays for expeditious disposal of the trial. It is possible subject to the cooperation of both the parties. However, it is directed that the learned Magistrate shall try the case as early as possible preferably within four months on its own merits in accordance with law. 13. With the direction aforesaid, this petition is disposed of Consequently, M.Cr.P. No. 3582/2003 and I.A.No. 4699/2003 stand disposed of. Petition Rejected.