Dishonour memo and demand notice validity under cheque law upheld despite added interest claim.

A dishonour memo recording return of the cheque for insufficiency of funds was treated as sufficient proof of dishonour under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, so separate proof of the exact date of presentation and return through ledger records was unnecessary on the facts found. A statutory demand notice under Section 138 remained valid where it clearly claimed the cheque amount, and the addition of a severable claim for interest did not invalidate the notice or affect its timeliness. The document therefore states that the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the acquittal set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dishonour memo was sufficient proof of dishonour of the cheque so as to dispense with proof of the exact date of presentation and return; (ii) Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 was invalid because it referred to interest in addition to the cheque amount.

Issue (i): Whether the dishonour memo was sufficient proof of dishonour of the cheque so as to dispense with proof of the exact date of presentation and return.

Analysis: The dishonour memo recorded the cheque as returned for insufficiency of funds. Under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the memo raised a sufficient presumption regarding dishonour unless disproved. The requirement to produce the ledger extract for proving the exact date of dishonour or presentation was therefore unnecessary on the facts found.

Conclusion: The dishonour memo was sufficient proof of dishonour, and the trial court's contrary view was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory notice under Section 138 was invalid because it referred to interest in addition to the cheque amount.

Analysis: The period for issuing notice runs from receipt of information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid. The notice specifically demanded the cheque amount, and the additional claim for interest was severable. A demand notice has to be read as a whole, and the mere inclusion of interest does not invalidate it when the cheque amount is otherwise clearly claimed.

Conclusion: The statutory notice was valid and was within the prescribed time, and the objection based on the claim for interest failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained in favour of the complainant and the acquittal was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A dishonour memo showing insufficiency of funds is sufficient proof of dishonour under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a demand notice under Section 138 remains valid if the cheque amount is clearly demanded even though it also includes a severable claim for interest.

---