Raghumayee Raman vs R. Padma

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—This petition has been filed to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 844 of 2003. The

petitioner was prosecuted by the respondent for the alleged offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that a cheque for a sum

of Rs. 20,000/- issued by the respondent bounced when presented for collection. The petitioner filed a discharge petition before the trial Court but

the same was dismissed. Aggrieved over the said order, this revision has been filed.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the statutory notice issued by the counsel for the respondent/complainant

contained the averment adding Rs. 200/- more than the cheque amount. In that regard, he relied on the judgement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court

reported in 2000(2) Supreme Court Cases 380 (Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K Churiwal and another ) . A perusal of the notice would clearly show that

the demand has been made for the cheque amount of Rs. 20,000/- and also Rs. 200/- being the interest which is mentioned distinctly in the notice

itself. The complaint has been filed only for the cheque amount of Rs. 20,000/- In the case cited supra the Supreme Court has held that in the

notice if the demand has been made for the cheque amount and other claims such as interest and other damages, also mentioned separately in the

notice, the same cannot be treated as bad. If however, an omnibus demand is made in the notice without mentioning the cheque amount, the notice

will be regarded as bad. In the present case, the cheque amount has been clearly stated and the additional amount of interest was also mentioned

but the complaint is filed only for the cheque amount. Therefore, the judgement cited by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to

above itself is against the contention made by him.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also relied upon K.R. Indira Vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana, wherein the Supreme Court has held in that

case that the Legal statutory notice does not meet the requirement of law and the essential ingredients of Clause (b) of Proviso to Section 138 was

not complied with. That was a case in which there was no specific demand for payment of the cheque amount and notice was issued by the

complainant not for the cheque amount but for the loan amount. In the present case, the cheque amount has been distinctly mentioned and the

complaint has been filed for payment of the cheque amount which is the subject matter of the case.

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fails. Hence, the Civil revision case is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.

M.P. Nos. 760 and 761 of 2004 are also dismissed. Since, the case is pending for more than one year, learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to

dispose of the case within a period of six months from the date of the order.