1. This application under section 482 of CrPC has been filed against the order dated 12.6.2013 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, District Guna in Criminal Revision No.283/2010 by which the order dated 22.11.2010 passed by JMFC, Chachoda, District Guna in Criminal Case No.689/2010 has been affirmed.

2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 of IPC has been filed by the respondent No.1 against the applicant on the allegation that the applicant was in need of Rs.4,30,000/- and, therefore, the respondent No.1 had given the said amount but the same was not repaid. Accordingly, a cheque dated 26.7.2010 for Rs.4,30,000/- was given by the respondent No.1 to the applicant which stood bounced on the ground that the holder of the account has intimated the bank to stop payment as the said cheque has been stolen. Statutory notice was issued and since the payment was not made, therefore, the complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed.

3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that an objection was raised before the Magistrate contending inter alia that in the statutory notice, issued by the complainant/respondent No.1, it was alleged that the applicant had taken a loan of Rs.43,000/- and a cheque of Rs.43,000/- was given in lieu of repayment of loan amount which was presented before the bank and it has stood bounced whereas in the complaint it is alleged that the applicant had taken a loan of Rs.4,30,000/- and a cheque for an amount of Rs.4,30,000/- was given which stood bounced. It was submitted that as the notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was not issued for the amount of the cheque, therefore, the complaint, as filed by the respondent No.1, is not maintainable.

4. In reply to the said objection, it was contended by the counsel for the respondent No.1 that because of typographical error in the notice, issued under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by mistake an amount of Rs.43,000/- was mentioned in the place of Rs.4,30,000/- and the said mistake in the statutory notice is merely an irregularity and not an illegality, therefore, at this stage, the complaint cannot be dismissed.

5. The objection raised by the applicant was rejected and the cognizance for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was taken against the applicant.

6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2010, the applicant filed a criminal revision which was registered as Criminal Revision No.283/2010. The Additional Sessions Judge, Chachoda, by order dated 12.8.2013, dismissed the revision only on the ground that whether the amount of Rs.43,000/-, as mentioned in the statutory notice, was because of typographical error or not, can only be decided after the evidence is led.

7. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that by issuing a notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the holder in due course of the cheque has to make a demand of the payment of “said amount of money” to the drawer of the cheque and since the complaint has been filed on the allegation that a cheque of Rs.4,30,000/- was issued by the applicant but as the notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was given for an amount of Rs.43,000/- only, therefore, it cannot be said that the notice as issued under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was issued for the “said amount of money”. Thus, it is submitted that as the notice under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was not issued for the “said amount of money”, therefore, the complaint filed on the basis of the notice dated 23.8.2010 is bad and is not maintainable.

8. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.1 that although it was mentioned in the statutory notice issued under section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act that the applicant had taken a loan of Rs.43,000/-