Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The demand for payment under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act must correspond exactly to the cheque amount. Any notice mentioning an amount different from the cheque amount is considered illegal and vague, rendering the notice invalid (!) .

2. In the case discussed, the cheque amount was Rs. 5,79,000/-, but the demand notice issued sought Rs. 6,50,000/-. This discrepancy made the notice insufficient and legally invalid (!) .

3. The court held that the notice must specify the cheque amount precisely; otherwise, it creates difficulty for the drawer to know the exact amount to pay, which violates the requirement for clarity and legality (!) .

4. The court emphasized that the provisions of Section 138 are penal in nature and require strict adherence to procedural requirements, including accurate mention of the cheque amount in the demand notice (!) (!) .

5. The definition of 'payee' and 'holder' under the relevant sections supports that the complaint and demand notice must be made by the actual payee or holder of the cheque. The person who issued the cheque (the drawer) cannot unilaterally alter the amount demanded in the notice without invalidating it (!) (!) .

6. The court clarified that if a notice demands a higher or lower amount than the cheque amount, it is superfluous but does not necessarily invalidate the notice. However, in this case, the discrepancy was significant enough to invalidate the notice (!) .

7. The order passed by the lower court was set aside because the demand notice was not in strict compliance with the statutory requirement of mentioning the cheque amount, leading to the conclusion that the cognizance of the offence based on such a notice was illegal (!) (!) .

8. The overall ruling underscores the importance of precise compliance with the statutory provisions regarding the amount to be demanded in notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.