Cheque dishonour notice must match the legally recoverable debt; part-payment omissions can invalidate Section 138 demand.

A statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand the legally recoverable amount due when issued; where part-payment had already been made and the notice omitted that payment while claiming more than the outstanding liability, the notice was treated as invalid and the acquittal was sustained. The statutory presumptions under Sections 138 and 139 operate once cheque execution is shown, but the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. On the admitted part-payments, the transaction record, and the failure to establish an enforceable debt matching the cheque and notice, the defence was held sufficiently probable, so the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was invalid for not reflecting the part-payment already made and for demanding an amount higher than the actual outstanding liability. (ii) Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was invalid for not reflecting the part-payment already made and for demanding an amount higher than the actual outstanding liability.

Analysis: The amount demanded in the notice had to correspond to the amount actually payable on the date of presentation of the cheque. Where part-payment had already been made before issuance of notice, omission to refer to such payment rendered the demand vague and omnibus. A notice that calls upon the drawer to pay more than the principal amount due does not satisfy the mandatory requirement of Section 138(b), because the notice must enable the drawer to make payment of the amount covered by the cheque as legally due.

Conclusion: The notice was held to be invalid, and the finding of acquittal on that ground was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was established, the statutory presumption operated in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt. The accused was required to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. On the record, the part-payments admitted by the complainant, the nature of the transaction, and the failure to establish a legally recoverable amount corresponding to the notice and cheque led the Court to accept the defence as sufficiently probable. In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, interference was warranted only where the trial court's view was perverse or fundamentally erroneous.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted to the extent necessary, and the acquittal was not disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal challenging acquittal failed. The conviction case under Section 138 did not survive, and the respondent retained the benefit of the trial court's acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a notice demanding payment must reflect the legally recoverable amount due at the relevant time, and the drawer may rebut the statutory presumption by showing, on a preponderance of probabilities, that no such enforceable liability subsisted for the amount demanded.

---