P.D. Rajan, J.

1. The question is whether non-mentioning of the cheque number in the notice issued by the "payee or the holder of the cheque" amounts to noncompliance of Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act? This revision petition was preferred against the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 109/2003 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-1, Palakkad. The revision petitioner was the accused in ST No. 274/1999 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad for having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). The complainant's case in the Trial Court was that the accused borrowed a sum of RS 1 lakh from him and in discharge of that debt, he issued Ext. P1 cheque. When it was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant, who is the holder of the cheque demanded the amount by issuing a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque. Even after notice, there was no repayment, hence the complaint. During trial, complainant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad convicted the accused under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and sentenced to simple imprisonment for three months and RS 1,00,000/- as compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. Against that, he preferred criminal appeal 109/2003 before Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track-I, Palakkad which was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this revision petition.

2. Sri. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner contended that the cheque number mentioned in the complaint as well as in Ext. P4 notice is different and if it is not mentioned correctly in the notice, there is no cause of action as claimed under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. When there is no proper notice, the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is to be set aside. He relied the decisions reported in Bank of Baroda v. Philip Thomas, 2006 KHC 960 : 2006 (3) KLT 729 : ILR 2006 (3) Ker. 561 : 2006 (3) KLJ 226 : 2007 CriLJ 2838 and John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham, 2013 (4) KHC 853 : 2014 (1) KLT 90 : 2014 (1) KLD 64 : (2014) 2 SCC 236 : 2014 CriLJ 2304.

3. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. For maintaining a complaint service of notice is mandatory. This legal liability on the part of payee or the holder of the cheque has to be complied with subject to the limitation provided under Section 138(b) of the N.I. Act. Relevant portion of Section 138 of the N.I. Act reads thus:

"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 that 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 extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall apply unless-

(a) xxxx

(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 cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and

(c) the drawer of such cheque falls to make the payment of the said amount of money to the pa