Section 138 notice must demand the cheque amount specifically; probable defence rebutted statutory presumptions and upheld acquittal.

A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act must specifically demand the cheque amount; an omnibus claim for overall dues without identifying the dishonoured cheque liability is insufficient, so the notice was invalid for Section 138. Although execution of the cheques was admitted and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose, the accused rebutted them by showing a probable defence based on account discrepancies, including double or incorrect billing and a mismatch between the notice amount and the complainant's documents. The complainant then failed to prove the debt or liability on the evidence, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference, in view of the alleged defect in the demand notice and the accused persons' rebuttal of the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The demand notice under Section 138(b) must make a clear demand for the cheque amount, and an omnibus demand for all dues without specifying the amount payable under the dishonoured cheques does not satisfy the statutory requirement. In the present case, the notice demanded payment of the entire outstanding dues rather than the cheque amount, rendering it invalid for the purpose of Section 138. Separately, once execution of the cheques was not in dispute, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose, but they were rebuttable. The accused persons raised a probable defence by pointing to discrepancies in the accounts, including double or incorrect billing and an unexplained mismatch between the amount claimed in the notice and the amount reflected in the documents produced by the complainant. On that showing, the evidential burden shifted back, and the complainant failed to establish the debt liability as a matter of fact.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld, and interference was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the demand notice must specifically demand the cheque amount, and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 stand rebutted once the accused raises a probable defence showing non-existence of debt or liability on a preponderance of probabilities.

---