Demand notice under cheque dishonour law was valid despite informal wording, and the fine remained within statutory limits.

A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid because it effectively conveyed the payment demand after dishonour, identified the firm through its name and address, and caused no prejudice even though it was issued in the managing director's name without expressly stating it was on behalf of the firm. The notice need not follow any rigid form. The fine and sentence imposed for cheque dishonour were also upheld as they remained within the statutory ceiling, which permits fine up to twice the cheque amount, and the compensation-oriented approach supported the amounts imposed. The revisions therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand notice issued after dishonour of the cheques was invalid because it was issued in the name of the managing director and not expressly on behalf of the firm; (ii) Whether the fine and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were excessive or beyond the statutory limit.

Issue (i): Whether the demand notice issued after dishonour of the cheques was invalid because it was issued in the name of the managing director and not expressly on behalf of the firm.

Analysis: The cheques were issued in favour of the firm, and the notice made it clear that it was issued on instructions of the managing director with the firm's name and address disclosed in the notice itself. The object of notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is to communicate a demand for payment after dishonour, and no rigid form is prescribed. The managing director, being the person in control and entitled to act for the firm, could validly issue the notice. The accused had sufficient knowledge of the party demanding payment, and the omission to expressly recite that the notice was issued "on behalf of the firm" caused no prejudice.

Conclusion: The demand notice was valid and the challenge to the prosecution on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the fine and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were excessive or beyond the statutory limit.

Analysis: The cheque amounts in the three cases were lower than the fines imposed by the trial court, and the appellate court had already reduced the substantive sentence while maintaining the fines. The permissible punishment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act extends to fine up to twice the cheque amount, and the compensation-oriented approach recognised by precedent supports a realistic award reflecting the cheque amount and the loss caused by dishonour. The amounts imposed in all three cases were within the statutory ceiling and did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The sentence and fine were held to be legal and within the statutory limit.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of guilt and the sentence imposed for cheque dishonour were left undisturbed, and the revisions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid if it effectively communicates the demand for payment after dishonour, even if it is not in a rigid form or does not expressly state that it is issued on behalf of the payee, provided the drawer is not misled; and a fine imposed for conviction under Section 138 is sustainable if it remains within the statutory ceiling.

---