Strict compliance under cheque dishonour notice rules: demand must match the cheque amount or prosecution fails.

A statutory notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must demand the exact amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. Applying strict compliance, the Madras High Court held that a notice seeking a larger or different sum does not satisfy the mandatory precondition for prosecution, because the drawer must be given an opportunity to pay the cheque amount and avoid criminal liability. Additional claims such as interest or charges can be pursued only after first demanding the cheque amount itself. The notice was therefore invalid, and the complaint based on it was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a statutory notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid when it demands an amount different from the cheque amount and whether such defect vitiates the prosecution.

Analysis: The notice under proviso (b) to Section 138 must make a demand for the very amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. The object of the notice is to afford the drawer an opportunity to make payment of the cheque amount and thereby avoid criminal liability. Where the notice demands a larger or different amount, the mandatory requirement is not satisfied. The Court applied the principle of strict compliance to hold that the cheque amount and the demanded amount must correspond, though additional sums such as interest or charges may be claimed only after specifically demanding the cheque amount itself.

Conclusion: The notice was invalid because it demanded more than the cheque amount, and the complaint based on such notice was not maintainable. The proceedings were quashed in favour of the petitioner.

---