A statutory demand notice following the dishonour of a cheque must accurately specify the instrument's identifying details, including the cheque number and date. A notice lacking the cheque number or containing an erroneous date is legally invalid as it fails to adequately inform the drawer of the alleged liability.

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Das, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed under Section 378 CrPC against the final judgment and order dated 26.07.2018, passed by the learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in C.R. Case No. 2036(c)/2017 under Sections 138/142 of N.I. Act whereby the accused/respondent was acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

3. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the accused/respondent while discharging lawful liability issued a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the complainant/appellant on 05.04.2017 which was drawn with SBI Narengi Branch.

4. Later on he deposited the cheque in the account maintained with Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd., Guwahati Branch but the said cheque was dishonoured vide its return memo dated 25.05.2017 on the ground of “insufficient fund”.

5. Thereafter, the appellant/complainant through his engaged counsel had issued a demand notice on 30.05.2017 against the accused/respondent demanding Rs.6,00,000/- within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the issuance of the notice.

6. On enquiry made by the appellant, he also came to know that the notice was received by the respondent on 21.06.2017, but he failed to give any reply and for which, the appellant as a complainant had instituted a complaint under Section 138/142 of the N.I. Act.

7. After recording evidences etc., the learned Trial Court had passed the order and while passing the judgment, 3 (three) issues have been framed by the learned Trial Court which are as follows:

(a) Whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability?

(b) Whether the cheque was dishonoured for the reason “insufficient funds”

(c) Whether the accused/respondent received the demand notice issued by the complainant/appellant regarding dishonour of cheque?

8. After hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Court while passing the judgment had decided the issue No.(a) and (c) against the complainant/appellant, however, the issue No.(b) was decided in favour of the appellant and thereby acquitted the accused/respondent with the observation that the complainant could not prove the case and on the ground of benefit of doubt, the accused/appellant got the order of acquittal.

9. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also failed to appreciate the facts about the existence of liability in favour of the complainant/appellant.

10. He further submitted that there is no dispute in regards to the signature put by the accused/respondent in the cheque in question and the cheque dated 05.04.2017, but inadvertently the demand notice which was issued to the respondent, the date was mentioned as 05.04.2014 which is an inadvertent mistake on the part of the appellant. The accused at the time of recording his evidence also admitted the signature in the cheque in question and he never denied about the signature.

11. In the demand notice, i.e., Ext.C, they demand Rs.6,00,000/- which was issued on 30.05.2017 but there was a simple typographical mistake in the demand notice as stated above, which is also clarified by the appellant/complainant. Further it is an admitted fact that the cheq