RAGHUMAYEE RAMAN Vs. R PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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.

(2.) 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.