Statutory notice under cheque dishonour law is mandatory, so an additional accused cannot be summoned without it.

Section 319 CrPC permits summoning an additional accused in appropriate cases, but in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the statutory notice requirement in proviso (b) is mandatory. Where no notice was served on the proposed accused, the complaint was not maintainable against that person, so the summoning order could not be sustained. The Court therefore treated the defect as jurisdictional and held that the person could not validly be added as an accused in the absence of compliance with the notice condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person could be summoned as an additional accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when the statutory notice required by proviso (b) to Section 138 had not been served on him.

Analysis: Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables summoning of a person as an additional accused in appropriate cases. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, the statutory conditions in the proviso are mandatory and must be satisfied before the complaint becomes maintainable against a person. As no notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 was served on the appellant, the complaint was not maintainable against him and the order summoning him could not stand.

Conclusion: The appellant could not validly be summoned as an additional accused, and the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error.

---