ORDER : 1. The petitioner is the accused in S.T. Nos.894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900 and 901 of 2021 pending on the files of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode. The cases originated from complaints filed by the 1 st respondents alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (“the N.I.Act” for short) by the petitioner. Briefly stated, the allegations are to the following effect. The accused borrowed a total amount of Rs.1,12,25,000/- from the complainants in tranches and towards discharge of that liability, issued 19 cheques. The cheques, on presentation through the complainants’ Bank, viz; the Punjab National Bank, were returned dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Although notices demanding payment of the amounts covered by the cheques were issued and served on the accused, instead of paying the amount, the accused sent replies denying the liability. 2. On receipt of summons, the petitioner entered appearance and thereafter filed petitions under Sections 2 04 and 461 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to drop the proceedings, since the averments in the complaints did not disclose the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The learned Magistrate found that the petition for dropping the proceedings is not maintainable, since cognisance is taken based on private complaints. Having thus found the petition to be not maintainable, the Magistrate proceeded to consider and dismiss them on merits. Aggrieved, the Crl.M.Cs are filed. 3. Heard Adv.Veena Hari for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Lakshminarayanan and Adv.Sharan Shahier for the 1 st respondents. Adv.P.Gopal, the learned Amicus Curiae also made detailed submissions. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are ex facie illegal since, after finding the petitions to be not maintainable, the court below should not have decided those petitions on merits. It is submitted that, out of 19 cheques issued, 18 cheques were of the year 2021 and drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, which had ceased to exist on acquisition by the State Bank of India. It is submitted that, out of 19 cheques issued, 18 cheques were of the year 2021 and drawn on the State Bank of Travancore, which had ceased to exist on acquisition by the State Bank of India. By reason of the acquisition made with the sanction of the Central Government as per Order No.GSR 160(E) dated 22.02.2017, the business of the subsidiary bank is carried out by the State Bank of India in accordance with the State Bank of India Act, 1955 with effect from the 1 st day of April, 2017. It is contended that upon acquisition, the State Bank of Travancore ceased to exist and the acquiring Bank, the State Bank of India, had fixed the validity of cheques of the erstwhile subsidiary bank only upto 31.03.2018. Being so, the cheques drawn on the State Bank of Travancore in the year 2021 had no legal validity. 5. It is then contended that as per Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 'a cheque’ is a Bill of Exchange drawn on a specified banker. The State Bank of Travancore, on which the subject cheques were drawn was not a specified Banker in 2021, the bank itself having ceased to exist. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the Punjab National Bank had committed gross illegality by returning the cheques along with dishonour memos bearing the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. Referring to the decision in Archana Singh Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine All 4599 , it is pointed out that under identical circumstances, the Allahabad High Court had quashed the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 6. Learned Counsel for the complainants argued that the endorsement ‘funds insufficient’ in the dishonour memos is sufficient proof of the fact that the cheques drawn on the State Bank of Travancore were valid and the petitioner had not maintained funds sufficient for honouring the cheques in his account continued with the State Bank of India. According to the counsel, the acquisition makes no difference as far as the cheques issued by the SBT are concerned. According to the counsel, the acquisition makes no difference as far as the cheques issued by the SBT are concerned. By virtue of the Acquisition of State Bank of Travancore Order, 2017, the undertaking of the transferor bank had vested in the transferee bank, including all business, assets, rights, powers, authorities, licenses, permits, approvals, permissions, incentives, loans, subsidies, concessions, grants, liberties, special status' and other privileges and all properties had vested with the transferree bank. Moreover, as per Annexure R-1(1) news item published with respect to the merger of the State Bank of Travancore with the State Bank of India, it was assured that there will not be any changes to the accounts, pass books and cheque books of the existing customers of SBT who are account holders in both banks and such persons can use their existing account numbers and pass books for transactions. 7. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the amalgamation of the SBT with the SBI was done in accordance with Section 35 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 . The Reserve Bank of India approved the proposal for amalgamation through takeover and thereafter the Central Government granted sanction and issued the Acquisition of State Bank of Travancore Order, 2017. As per paragraph 1(2) of the order, the effective date, was fixed as 01.04.2017 and as per paragraph 2, from the effective date onwards, the undertaking of the transferor bank, as it stood immediately before the effective date, stood transferred to and vested in the transferee bank. The challenge raised against the amalgamation was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court as per the decision in Save SBT Forum, Tvm. and Others v. Union of India and Others, 2017 (2) KLT 908 . After the amalgamation, queries were raised as to the validity of old MICR cheque books of the State Bank of Travancore and other associate banks. The query was answered by the RBI vide communication dated 02.05.2018, clarifying that old MICR cheque books of associate banks will be valid only upto 30.06.2018. The amicus curiae then explained the manner in which clearing houses function with reference to the 'Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses'. It was pointed out that as per the regulations, documents/instruments returned unpaid must bear a signed or initialled objection slip, on which a definite and valid reason for refusing payment must be stated. The amicus curiae then explained the manner in which clearing houses function with reference to the 'Uniform Regulations and Rules for Bankers’ Clearing Houses'. It was pointed out that as per the regulations, documents/instruments returned unpaid must bear a signed or initialled objection slip, on which a definite and valid reason for refusing payment must be stated. With reference to the list of objections approved by the clearing house, it was submitted that the SBT having ceased to exist as a banker on the date of presentation of the cheque, the proper endorsement would have been “wrongly delivered/not drawn on us”. 8. The fact that the SBT had amalgamated with the SBI as per the Acquisition of State Bank of Travancore Order, 2017 is not in dispute. The only question is whether the cheques drawn on SBT after such amalgamation are valid negotiable instruments. Here, the following definition of cheque in Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act assumes relevance; “ 6. Cheque”.— A “cheque” is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form.” Going by the definition, to be legal tender, the cheque must have been drawn on a specified banker. In this context it is essential to note that the payment systems of banks in India is regulated and supervised in accordance with the provisions of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 . Section 2 (1) (a) of the said Act defines bank in the following manner; “(a) “bank” means,— (i) a bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934(2 of 1934); (ii) a post office savings bank; (iii) a banking company as defined in clause (c) of section 5 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (iv) a co-operative bank as defined in clause (cci) of section 5, as inserted by section 56, of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); and (v) such other bank as the Reserve Bank may, by notification, specify for the purposes of this Act; “ 9. On amalgamation of the SBT with the SBI, with effect from 01.04.2017, it ceased to be a bank. On amalgamation of the SBT with the SBI, with effect from 01.04.2017, it ceased to be a bank. In such circumstances, the cheques dated 2021 drawn on the SBT will not fall within the definition of cheque in Section 6 of the N.I.Act as they were not drawn on a specified banker. In this context, it is essential to note that as per Section 138 , the cheque must be drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of money to another person. In the case at hand, the account maintained by the petitioner was not in subsistence on the dates when the cheques were drawn. Being so, merely because the cheques were returned with the wrong endorsement “funds insufficient”, instead of “wrongly delivered/not drawn on us”, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. The above view is supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Archana Singh Gautam (supra), the relevant paragraphs of which read as under; “ 7. From the perusal of Section 138 N.I. Act, it is clear that if any invalid cheque is presented before the Bank and the same was dishonoured, then there is no liability under Section 138 N.I. Act would be attracted, and the cheque of Allahabad Bank is invalid after 30.09.2021 after merging the Allahabad Bank into the Indian Bank on 01.04.2020. Therefore, dishonouring such cheques after 30.09.2021 will not attract liability u/s 138 N.I. Act. 8. It is also relevant to mention here that as per Section 118 (b) of N.I. Act a cheque shall be deemed to be drawn on the date which is mentioned in the cheque even if same may post dated.” 10. The above discussion leads to the conclusion that the cheques presented by the complainants were invalid and therefore, could not have been returned with the endorsement 'funds insufficient'. 11. In the result, the Crl.M.Cs are allowed. All further proceedings in S.T. Nos.894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900 and 901 of 2021 pending on the files of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (NI Act Cases), Kozhikode are quashed. I place on record my appreciation for the immense help rendered by the learned amicus curiae.