Absence of Specific Amount in Demand Notice Invalidates Offence Under Section 138 of NI Act
In a pivotal judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, upheld the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case, emphasizing the necessity of specificity in legal notices under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The judgment, delivered on May 26, 2026, in the case of Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. & Another, scrutinized the essential elements required for a valid legal notice under Section 138 of the Act.
The appellant, Rajesh K., had challenged the acquittal of Asokan P.K., the accused, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, in a case involving the dishonour of a cheque amounting to Rs. 95,000. The trial court had previously acquitted the accused, citing the absence of a specific amount in the demand notice as a critical flaw.
During the appeal, Rajesh K.'s counsel argued that the trial court erred in its judgment, as the existence of a single transaction between the complainant and the accused implied the amount was known, thereby rendering the omission of the specific amount inconsequential. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the legal mandate under Section 138 necessitates the explicit mention of the amount in the demand notice for the offence to be deemed complete.
The court elaborated on the five stages required to establish an offence under Section 138, highlighting that the issuance of a demand notice specifying the exact amount is crucial. The absence of this detail renders the notice incomplete, thus invalidating the offence. Justice Badharudeen emphasized that the statutory language of "said amount of money" demands precision, without which the recipient cannot fulfill the obligation to avoid penal consequences.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in cases of cheque dishonour, ensuring that legal notices are detailed and explicit to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The verdict serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and parties involved in such disputes to meticulously comply with procedural mandates.
Bottom line:-
Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of cheque - Legal notice under Section 138 - Specific amount must be stated in the demand notice for it to be legally valid. Absence of such specific amount renders the notice incomplete, and the offence under Section 138 is not deemed to have been committed.
Statutory provision(s):
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138
Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K., (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2907219
