Company cheque dishonour notice goes to the drawer alone; vicarious accused need no separate statutory notice.

In cheque dishonour cases involving a company, statutory notice under proviso (b) to section 138 is required only to the company as the drawer; persons prosecuted vicariously under section 141 are not entitled to separate notice because notice to the company serves the object of giving the drawer an opportunity to pay and avoid prosecution. On sentence, the substantive imprisonment imposed on the signatory-directors was found excessive in the facts, so it was reduced to imprisonment till rising of the court while compensation to the complainant was retained and enhanced with a default imprisonment clause.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether persons prosecuted with the aid of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are entitled to separate notice under proviso (b) to section 138 of that Act; (ii) whether the sentence imposed for the cheque dishonour conviction required interference.

Issue (i): Whether persons prosecuted with the aid of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are entitled to separate notice under proviso (b) to section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The notice requirement in proviso (b) is directed to the drawer of the cheque. The drawer, where the cheque is issued by a company, is the company itself. Persons who sign the cheque on behalf of the company are not the drawers, but only signatories acting for the drawer. Section 141 fastens liability on persons in charge of the company for the offence committed by the company, but it does not create any separate requirement of notice to such persons. The purpose of notice is to give the drawer an opportunity to make payment and avoid prosecution, and that object is satisfied by notice to the company.

Conclusion: Separate notice to persons proceeded against under section 141 is not required when notice has been given to the company, the drawer.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the cheque dishonour conviction required interference.

Analysis: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence on the signatory-directors was considered excessive in the facts of the case. The Court found that a deterrent substantive sentence of imprisonment was unnecessary, while adequate compensation to the complainant remained necessary. The sentence was therefore reworked to substitute imprisonment till rising of the court and to increase compensatory relief, with a default imprisonment clause.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified in favour of the appellants to the extent of reducing substantive imprisonment, while compensation was retained and enhanced.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge succeeded only in part: the conviction was upheld, the legal objection based on absence of separate notice to the signatory-directors was rejected, and the sentence was softened with enhanced compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for dishonour of cheque issued by a company, the statutory notice under proviso (b) to section 138 is required only to be given to the company as drawer, and persons prosecuted vicariously under section 141 are not entitled to separate notice.

---