G SREENIVASAN Vs. M SARGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE G. Sreenivasan the petitioner herein was the accused in c. C. No. 5982 of 1991 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town madras. He, it is said, borrowed a sum of Rs. 16,000 on 10. 4. 1991 from one M. Sarguru the respondent/complainant herein agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 18 per cent per annum. Demands appeared to have been emerged from the complainant on several occasions for the repayment of the sum borrowed and consequently the accused was stated to have issued a cheque dated 11. 7. 1991 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 as part payment of the amount due to the complainant. The cheque so issued was stated to have been presented for encashments by the complainant with his banker's and he was stated to have received a banker's advice dated 8. 8. 1991 on 14. 8. 1991 informing him that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. On 19. 8. 1991 the complaintant caused a legal notice demanding payment of Rs. 16,720 comprising the principal amount and interest accrued due, including the sum of Rs. 10,000 for which a cheque has been issued as part payment towards the discharge of the debt. The accused received the notice on 24. 8. 1991. Thereafter he is said to have sent a letter dated 16. 9. 1991 requesting two months time for payment. The complainant on his part waiting for the statutory period of fifteen days for days for the demand made to be complied with which ended on 8. 9. 1991 resorted to launchprosecution by the presentation of a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') which was taken on file in the aforesaid calendar case.

(2.) ON receipt of process, the petitioner-accused came forward with the present action by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would with all vehemence contend that the statutory notice stated to have been given is suffering from the serious infirmity of a lacuna in the sense of not complying with the requirements contemplated by Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act. In elaboration of this argument what he would state is that the demand made in the notice is far in excess of the sum required to be paid as a consequence of the dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds and therefore it is that such a notice cannot at all be construed to be strictly in accordance with the compliance of the aforesaid statutory requirement and in such a situation it is but proper for this court to entertain this petition and quash the proceedings initiated against him.