JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this criminal misc. petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the Revisional Court. By the aforesaid order, the revision filed by the non-petitioner was accepted. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (for short "NI Act"), cognisance of the offence was taken by the competent court and the case was then kept for framing of charges. The revision petition against the said order was preferred by the non-petitioner - accused and has been accepted. The proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act was challenged on the ground that cheque in question was given as guarantee, thus on offence under Section 138 of NI Act is not made out. A reference of complaint made by the petitioner was given where it is admitted that cheques were given towards guarantee. The Court below did not find those cheques towards debt or other liabilities. The complaint was accordingly quashed so as the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 3. It is also submitted that impugned order was passed by the Revisional Court not only in ignorance of Section 138 of NI Act but the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer & Anr. reported in 2002(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 364 : AIR 2002 SC 3014 . The judgment of aforesaid was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the similar facts. The cheque given by the guarantor was taken to be on offence under Section 138 of NI Act, if dishonoured by the Bank. The Hon'ble Apex Court did not approve the view taken by the High Court. The prayer is accordingly made to quash the impugned order in the light of the judgment supra. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent, despite service of notice. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record so as the judgment cited at bar. 6. The Revisional Court quashed the order of cognisance by referring Para No. 5 of the judgment in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra). It is by ignoring other paras and specific finding as to when the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act would be made out. 6. The Revisional Court quashed the order of cognisance by referring Para No. 5 of the judgment in the case of ICDS Ltd. (supra). It is by ignoring other paras and specific finding as to when the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act would be made out. To appreciate the arguments, Section 138 of NI Act is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. - Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, 5 of any debt or other liability, 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 and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for 19 [a term which may be extended to two years], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless- (a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which It is drawn or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier; (b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, 20 [within thirty days] of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and (c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." 7. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability." 7. The perusal of Section 138 of the NI Act reveals commission of offence, if the cheque is returned by the Bank unpaid for the reasons given under the provisions and if cheque was issued for discharge, in whole or part of any debt or other liability. The explanation below Section 138 of NI Act gives meaning of "debt or other liabilities". It means enforceable debt or other liabilities. The Hon'ble Apex Court considered the aforesaid issue in the light of the words used in Section 138 of NI Act and specifically "debt and other liabilities". Therein, the High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act holding that cheque by the guarantor cannot be towards debt and others liabilities, legally enforceable. The view aforesaid was not accepted by the Hon'ble Apex Court and thereby, set aside the judgment of the High Court. 8. It seems that the Court below has not carefully gone through the judgment aforesaid while referring para No. 5 alone. Para No. 5 of the said judgment was in reference to the cheque given in surety and not by the guarantor. The case in hand shows issuance of cheque by the guarantor. The issuance of cheque as security stand on different pedestal than the cheque issued by the guarantor. Para Nos. 5 to 13 of the judgment in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. (supra) are quoted hereunder for ready reference : "5. Having, however, the support of Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, the Kerala High Court in Sreenivasan (supra) observed: "A comparative reading of the principle laid down by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the mandatory provisions laid down in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is crystal clear that when a cheque has been issued as a security no complaint will lie under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act." 6. After having noted the interpretation of the High Court as regards Section 138 of the Act. time has thus now come for us to assess the acceptability of such a wisdom. Before however doing so, a brief factual reference would be convenient. After having noted the interpretation of the High Court as regards Section 138 of the Act. time has thus now come for us to assess the acceptability of such a wisdom. Before however doing so, a brief factual reference would be convenient. The facts reveal: The appellant herein is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, 1 having its registered and administrative office at Syndicate House, P.B. No. 46, Upendra Nagar, Manipal-576119 and branches among other places at Palayam, Trivandrum. The husband of respondent No. 1 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the appellant for the purposes of the purchase of a Maruti car on hire purchase basis. The 1 respondent No. 1, his wife stood as a guarantor in respect of the hire purchase facilities being made available to her husband the facts further reveal that the respondent No. 1 on account of the aforesaid transaction and towards part payment issued a cheque bearing No. 672501 dated 29.8.1998 for L 80,490/- drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Limited, St. 2 Marys School, Pattom, Trivandrum to the Appellant, admittedly, the said cheque was dishonoured and returned to the appellant with a remark "insufficient funds". 7. The factual matrix depict that the appellant issued a statutory notice on 2.9.1998 as contemplated under Section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act, calling upon the respondent No. 1 to pay the amount covered under the cheque within a period of 15 days and since the respondent No. 1 did not think it fit and proper to reply to the said notice in spite of receipt thereof, the appellant thereafter filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act before the Chief Judicial Magistrates Court : Thiruvananthapuram The complaint has been registered as S.T. No. 141/1999 in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and subsequently the case was taken on file for the purposes of the complaint and immediately thereafter, the respondents herein moved a Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal : Procedure for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings noticed above pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates Court, Thiruvananthapuram. 8. 8. The High Court, as noticed above, did allow the Petition upon a categorical finding that being a cheque from the guarantor it could not be said to have been issued for the purpose of discharging any debt or liability and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thus cannot be maintained. 9. As noticed hereinbefore the principal reason for quashing of the proceeding as also the complaint by the High Court was by reason of the fact that Section 138 of the Act provides for issuance of a cheque to another person towards the discharge in whole or in part of any or liability and on the factual context, the High Court came to a conclusion that issuance of the cheque cannot be co-related for the purpose of discharging any debt or liability and as such complaint under Section 138 cannot be maintainable. 10. The language, however, has been rather specific as regards the intent of the legislature. The commencement of the Section stands with the words "Where any cheque" The above noted three words are of excrement 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 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 principle debtor, in our view, is totally out of the purview of Section 138 of the Act, neither the same calls for any discussion therein. 11. The issue as regards the co-extensive liability of the guarantor and the principle 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 Statute 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 of 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 grantee and guarantors liability and thus has overlooked the true intent 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. 12. It is to be noted, however, that both the parties during the course of arguments have made elaborate submissions on Sections 126 and 128 of the Contract Act, but in our view, by reason of the specific language used by the legislature, question of consideration of the matter from the point of view of another Statute would not arise, neither we would like to express any view since that may have some effect as regards the merits. 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 Magistrates Court, Thiruvananthapuram stands restores and so is the complaint under Section 138 of the Act. No costs." 9. The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that whenever cheque is given towards security, it would not be considered to be against debt or other liabilities, legally enforceable. No costs." 9. The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that whenever cheque is given towards security, it would not be considered to be against debt or other liabilities, legally enforceable. The words "debt and other liabilities" are of significance. The issuance of cheque should be towards debt or other liabilities. The issuance of cheque by the guarantor would not be towards debt but against the other liabilities, hence, the Revisional Court committed illegality while quashing the order of cognisance in reference to the judgment supra. It is without making difference between issuance of cheque towards security and guarantee. The Court below made a reference of the statements of Hitesh Chand Vyas where he had stated about issuance of cheque towards guarantee of payment. If the aforesaid statement is taken on its face, it was for discharge of liability towards payment, hence would be covered by Section 138 of NI Act. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala & Anr. reported in 2006(2) WLC (SC) Cri. 176 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 , the Hon'ble Apex Court found issuance of cheque towards security. Therein, issuance of cheque towards security was not found covered by Section 138 of NI Act. The judgment aforesaid applies in the cases where cheque is issued towards security and not by the guarantor or towards guarantee, rather the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Ltd. (supra) would apply in the cases of guarantee. 10. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 17th October, 2003 passed by the Revisional Court is set aside by restoring the order passed by the learned Magistrate with the direction to expedite the proceedings and conclude it at the earliest. 11. This criminal misc. petition stands allowed with the aforesaid. This disposes of the stay application as well. Petition allowed.