Strict adherence to statutory conditions for notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act is essential, and curable amendments in the complaint are permissible if they do not alter the case's substance.

COMMON ORDER

While Crl.O.P.No.28035 of 2022 has been filed to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.166 of 2001 on the file of the learned VI Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, Crl.O.P.No.28174 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in C.R.P. No.05/2020 by the 1^st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore which was filed challenging the order dated 03.12.2019 passed in CMP No.7972/2019 in C.C.No.166 of 2001 by the VI Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.

2. Since both the cases arise out of the same criminal complaint, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, they are considered and decided by this common order.

Brief Facts:

3. The respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against Fidelity Industries Limited/A1 and the Director/ Employees of A1 company are arrayed as A2 to A7. The petitioner, as the Managing Director of A1 company is arrayed as A2 representing A1 company. The complaint was in respect of dishonor of a cheque bearing no.296743, dated 20.12.1999 for Rs.26,05,781/- drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, issued by A1 company and signed by the 6^th and 7^th accused, viz., K.Ramkumar and T.P.Sridhar, as authorized signatories of A1 company.

4. According to the complainant, A1 company had received an inter-corporate deposit of Rs.25,00,000/- on 29.07.1997 from the complainant for a period of 90 days repayable with interest at 22% per annum. The inter-corporate deposit was renewed from time to time. The inter-corporate deposit was renewed on 28.07.1999 for a further period of 90 days, thereby, the deposit became repayable on 28.10.1999 and on 28.10.1999, a demand promissory note was issued for a sum of Rs.26,05,780/- in favour of the complainant. According to the complainant, A1 company had issued letters agreeing to return the inter-corporate deposit of Rs.26,05,780/- and a post dated cheque bearing no.296743 drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., Mount Road, Chennai was issued on behalf of A1 company for the said sum and the same was signed by A6 and A7 as Authorised Signatories. The cheque had been presented for collection on 16.06.2000 before the State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Coimbatore and the said cheque was returned by the banker of A1 company, viz., the Vysya Bank Ltd., Mount Road, Chennai,with an endorsement “Insufficient funds” as per their return memorandum dated 20.06.2000. The complainant's bank viz., the State Bank of India, Industrial Finance Branch, Coimbatore issued a Debit Advice dated 21.06.2000 to the complainant. The complainant, on receipt of return memo, contending that the accused had issued the above said cheque towards repayment of a legally enforceable debt, sent a statutory notice to the accused on 05.07.2000. A1, A2 and A4 to A7 received the said legal notice and sent a reply notice dated 14.07.2000. Since the amount was not paid, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate VI, Coimbatore and it was taken up as C.C.No.166 of 2001.

5. Mr.C.Manishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/A2 contended that the accused are tried for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and in such case, the penal provisions have to be construed strictly and when there is defect in the statutory notice with regard to the cheque amount, the entire proceedings based on a defective statutory notice is illegal and thereby, further proceedings is an abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed. He further submitted that at paragraph 1 of the statutory notice, the complainant had averred that the accused have received an inter-corporate deposit of Rs.26,05,780/-, whereas the fact remains that inter-corporate deposit was only Rs.25,00,000/- and further, in the statutory notice, there are also discrepancies with regard to the cheque amount; further, the complainant had also made some mistakes in the complaint and thereafter, he has made an application seeking amendment of th