K.B. Siddappa, J. - This Revision is filed against the judgment and sentence passed in Crl. A. No. 91/98 on the file of VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. The case arises under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Admittedly the petitioner/accused approached the complainant/1st respondent for Bill Discounting facility by entering into agreement in the month of July. 1995. The petitioner availed the Bill Discounting facility amounting to Rs. 10,76,426-25ps. The petitioner signed the Hundi and submitted invoices along with his covering letter. The petitioner had to repay the Bill Discounting amount within 90 days from the period of borrowal. The due date was 28-10-1995. However, he did not repay the amount. The petitioner issued Ex. P-8, which is the cheque in this case dated 28-10-1995 for an amount of Rs. 10,76,000/- Subsequent to the issuance of the cheque an amount of Rs. 2,00,.000/- was paid in the month of November, 1995. Again in the month of February, 1996 the petitioner paid Rs. 50,000/-. On 23-2-1996, a further amount of Rs. 1,821/- was paid. In all the petitioner paid Rs. 3,01,821/-. P.W.1 who is authorised to file the complaint stated that the cheque issued by the petitioner was presented on 18-3-1996. But it was returned for insufficient funds. The complainant issued legal notice Ex. P-10 dated 30-3-1996.

The petitioner gave reply Ex. P-11, dated 14-4-1996 denying the transaction. Thereafter, the complainant/1st respondent wrote letters to the petitioner to pay the-amount. Exs. P-6 and P-7 are the office copies of the said letters. They demanded an amount of Rs. 8,76.000/-, which was the balance as on that day. No reply was given to these letters by the petitioner. Subsequently, some amount also was paid by the petitioner. There is no dispute that an amount of Rs. 3,50,000/ - was paid and a balance of Rs. 7,74,179/ - was due from the petitioner / accused. The liability of this amount is not seriously disputed in this Revision the lower Appellate Court discussed about these facts in detail.

3. Mr. T. Bali Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner/accused submitted that the cheque Ex. P-8, was for an amount of Rs. 10,76,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid some amounts. The cheque was presented on 18-3-1996 for the entire amount. Admittedly, the petitioner has paid Rs. 3,50,000/- already. Therefore, Ex. P-8 cheque, to this extent, is invalid. The original cheque is sued for Rs.10,76,000/- cannot be presented to realise the balance of Rs. 7,74,179/- which is admittedly due on the date of presentation of the cheque. Therefore, if the cheque bounced no liability can be fastened to the petitioner / accused.

4. In support of his contention a strong reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the Judgment of Calcutta High Court in Gopa Debi Ozha v. Sunit Paul1. In that case, in the notice an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was claimed. However, the complaint was made for a sum of Rs. 5,79,000/-. In those circumstances, the learned Judge held that the difference will create difficulty to the drawee to know how much amount he has to pay or she has to pay, as the cases may be and that makes the notice insufficient and vague and the notice will become illegal.

5. For the same purpose, he also relied upon another judgment of Calcutta High Court in N.C. Nag Pal v. The State2. In that case, it was observed that nothing was indicated in the notice as to how, the amount amounted to Rs. 6,50,000/-. In those circumstances, the Court held:

"28. So the wording in Clause (b) to the proviso of Section 138 "a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque" refers to the cheque amount and not any other amount either smaller or higher than the amount mentioned in the cheque".

In the case N.C. Nag (supra) and in Raj v. Rajan3 of Kerala High Court, unspecified interest was added to the cheque amount and notice