The main legal point established in the judgment is that a demand notice under Sec. 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not necessarily contain details of the transaction, and the presumption in favor of the holder under Sec. 139 applies.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal against acquittal. The appellant herein is the original complainant in Summary Criminal Case, being S.C.C. No.954/2015 instituted for the offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent herein was the accused in the said case. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence in the case, acquitted the respondent simply on the ground that the statutory demand notice did not disclose what type of transaction it was between the appellant and the respondent. The trial Court held that the receiver of a notice must at least know his legal liability for which cheque was issued. Since such details were not in the demand notice, the notice was held to be not legal and proper.

2. This Court had admitted the appeal. On service of notice of this appeal, the respondent marked his appearance through an Advocate. When the appeal was taken up for final hearing, neither the respondent nor his Advocate were present. This Court, therefore, appointed Shri Ketan G. Pote, learned counsel to assist the Court in this matter by representing the respondent herein.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, issuance of the cheque is the fact not in dispute. On receipt of the statutory demand notice, the respondent did not reply. A sum of Rs.3,05,000.00 was paid to the respondent as a hand loan in the presence of witnesses. During trial, the respondent failed to make out his case or rebut a statutory presumption. According to learned counsel, the statutory demand notice need not necessarily contain details of transaction. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Central Bank of India Vs. M/s Saxons Farms [ 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 366 ]. He ultimately urged for allowing the appeal with grant of compensation amounting to twice the amount of cheque.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent would, on the other hand, submit that, the respondent examined himself on oath. It is in his evidence that he had paid the amount to the appellant time to time. The appellant torn a colour photo copy of the cheque. The respondent thought that the original cheque was destroyed. No monetary transaction did exist between the two post destroy of the cheque. According to learned counsel, the statutory demand notice is silent to disclose what kind of transaction it was. The learned counsel reiterated the reasons given by the trial Court in support of the judgment of acquittal.

5. Considered the submissions advanced. Perused the evidence relied on. Gone through the citation placed on record. Before adverting to the factual matrix, reference to the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is necessary. Ss. 138, 139 and 142 of the Act are, therefore, reproduced below :-

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account :-

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both. Provided that nothing contained in this Sec. shall apply unless -

(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;

(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the chequ