APPUTTY Vs. YAHUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed a private complaint under Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, 'the NI Act') against the 1st respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirur (for short, 'the trial court') alleging an offence under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, as S.T.No.4120 of 1995. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint as not maintainable, relying on the decision of the Single Bench of Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha v. Sujit Paul, [1996 (2) KLT 886], which held that a notice of demand must be for the cheque amount and that if a higher or smaller amount is claimed in the notice, it is not a valid notice. This revision petition has been filed challenging the said order.

(2.) Heard Sri.T.Krishnanunni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) The Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha (supra) has held that if a higher or smaller amount than the cheque amount is claimed in the notice, it is not a valid notice. However, the Division Bench of this Court in Kunjan Panicker v. Christudas [1997 (2) KLT 539] took the view that a notice in which the cheque amount with interest and costs is also claimed cannot be said to be an invalid notice, but it is a valid notice.