Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 373
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B. Pattanaik and U.C. Banerjee, JJ.
United Credit Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Agro Sales India - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 323 of 2000.
Decided On : 3 April, 2000
Strict compliance with the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act is required when determining the validity of a notice under Section 138.
Headnote:
Invalid Notice - Negotiable Instrument Act - The court held that a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be held invalid merely because it contained some amount towards interest and cost separately after indicating the amount covered by the bounced cheque. The court referred to a previous judgment and emphasized the need for strict compliance with the provisions of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint, considering the notice to be invalid due to the inclusion of additional amounts for interest and costs. The High Court also dismissed the revision petition, leading the complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the notice was not invalid and set aside the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate, directing the Magistrate to conclude the proceedings in accordance with the law.
Issues: Validity of the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act
Ratio Decidendi: The notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be held invalid solely due to the inclusion of amounts for interest and costs, as strict compliance with the Act's provisions is required.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the High Court and the Magistrate were set aside.
U.C. Banerjee, J. - Leave granted.
2. The complainant is the appellant before us. A complaint having been filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint holding the notice itself to be invalid as the notice contained not only the amount covered by the cheque but also some other amount towards interest and costs. The complainant moved the High Court by filing a revision petition and the High Court having dismissed the same, the complainant is before us.
3. The question for our consideration, therefore, is whether the impugned notice can be held to be invalid merely because the notice contained some amount towards interest and cost separately after indicating the amount covered by the cheque which stood bounced. This question has already been answered by this Court in the case of Suman Sethi v. Ajay Kr. Churiwal and another, JT 2000(1) SC 493.
4. Mr. Ganguli, learned senior Counsel appearing for the accused contended that the aforesaid judgment requires reconsideration in view of the strict compliance of the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
5. Having examined the notice that was given in the present case and the provisions of the Act as well as the law down by this Court, we see no force in the aforesaid contention and, therefore, in our view the Magistrate was wholly error to hold that the notice itself is invalid. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and that of the Magistrate and direct the Magistrate to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
6. This appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Appeals allowed.
