Section 138 cheque dishonour notice remains valid without advocate signature, and statutory presumptions stand unless rebutted.

A demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains valid if it is issued in writing by the payee or holder in due course and clearly specifies the dishonoured cheques, dishonour memo and demand for payment; the absence of the advocate's signature does not invalidate it. Non-compliance with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act does not defeat a prosecution under Section 138. Where issuance of the cheques and signatures are admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder, and a defence of lost blank cheques or unsupported missing diary entries will not rebut them. The cheques were held issued for a legally enforceable debt.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was invalid for want of the advocate's signature. (ii) Whether non-compliance with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 defeated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (iii) Whether the respondent rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the admitted cheques and signatures, and whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Issue (i): Whether the demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was invalid for want of the advocate's signature.

Analysis: The notice disclosed the cheque particulars, dishonour memo, demand for payment, and the consequence of non-payment. The statutory requirement is that the payee or holder in due course make a written demand within time; the provision does not require the notice to be signed by the advocate. The contents of the notice, read as a whole, satisfied the legal requirements.

Conclusion: The notice was valid and the objection based on absence of the advocate's signature failed.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 defeated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The Court noted that the earlier view treating such non-compliance as fatal had been disapproved by later Supreme Court authority. The requirement under Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 does not control maintainability of a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 269SS did not render the complaint bad in law.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the admitted cheques and signatures, and whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: Once issuance of cheques and signatures are admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the holder. The defence of lost blank cheques and the alleged missing diary was found improbable and unsupported. The evidence on record, including the dishonour of the cheques and the surrounding circumstances, established a legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to rebut the presumption, and the cheques were held to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent acquittal was set aside, the respondent was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the revision was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice under Section 138 is valid if it is issued in writing by the payee or holder in due course and sufficiently specifies the dishonoured cheque and demand for payment, while the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 prevail unless the accused establishes a probable defence.

---