Statutory demand notice is essential before prosecuting an accused in cheque dishonour complaints under the NI Act.

Liability in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act arises only after a valid statutory demand notice is served on the drawer or the person sought to be proceeded against, and failure to pay within the prescribed time follows. In the absence of any notice to the applicant, either personally or as proprietor of the concern, the complaint was not maintainable against him. The trial court also could not add an accused through a simple amendment application, as such power was not available by invoking inherent jurisdiction; that power lies with the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The proposed impleadment was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant could be added as an accused in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 without service of the statutory demand notice, and whether such impleadment could be permitted by a simple amendment application.

Analysis: Liability under Section 138 arises only when a valid demand notice is issued to the drawer or person sought to be proceeded against and payment is not made within the statutory time. In the absence of any notice to the applicant either personally or as proprietor of the concern, the complaint was not maintainable against him. The power to add an accused is not available to the trial Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction, which vests in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The authority relied upon for amendment of complaints did not justify addition of an accused in the absence of the statutory notice requirement and without any prescribed procedural power under the Code.

Conclusion: The application for impleadment could not be sustained, and the applicant could not be prosecuted in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---