Section 138 notice must demand the cheque amount; mismatch with the complaint defeats the statutory precondition.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held not to prima facie disclose the offence where the statutory demand notice did not call upon the drawer to pay the cheque amount. The court noted that the notice demanded Rs.43,000 while the complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs.4,30,000, creating a material mismatch between the notice and the complaint. Because the requirements of Section 138 are cumulative and must be construed strictly, the discrepancy was not treated as a mere typographical error. The statutory precondition of a valid demand for the cheque amount was therefore not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintainable when the statutory notice demanded an amount of Rs.43,000/- while the complaint alleged dishonour of a cheque for Rs.4,30,000/-.

Analysis: The demand notice under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 must call upon the drawer to pay the said amount of money, meaning the cheque amount. The requirements of Section 138 are cumulative and, being penal in nature, must be construed strictly. On the facts pleaded, the notice and the complaint did not correspond: the notice proceeded on a loan and cheque of Rs.43,000/-, whereas the complaint alleged a loan and cheque of Rs.4,30,000/-. The discrepancy was not treated as a mere typographical error capable of being ignored at the threshold, because the statutory demand itself was for a different amount and thus did not satisfy the mandatory precondition.

Conclusion: The statutory notice did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of a demand for the cheque amount, and the complaint did not prima facie disclose an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---