1. The petitioner have been convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act for dishonor of the cheque issued by them for a sum of Rs. 1,62,600.98ps. The Trial Court has convicted them. The Trial Court has convicted them. The District court in appeal has confirmed the conviction and fine of Rs. 1,82,600.98ps imposed by the Trial Court and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that the notice issued by way of telegram does not confer to the requirements of law relating to issue of notice as contemplated under Section 138B. In this regard, they have relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of M.MURUGAN VS. QUEEN JHANSI VETRIKODIPARA reported in 2004 Crl. L.J. 3184 wherein at paras 7,8, and 9, the following observations are made:-

“Two questions arise in this matter.

1. Whether a telegram can be equated to a FAX message?

2. Whether the telegram had been confirmed by a registered post?

As far as the first point is concerned, no doubt, the contents of the telegram may contain all particulars. But the fact remains that the respondent has not received any