Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. and Another, 2026

The complainant alleged commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The dispute arose from the dishonour of a cheque for ₹95,000.

A complaint was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra.

The complainant had issued a statutory demand notice after the cheque was dishonoured.

The notice referred to the cheque number and date.

However, the notice did not expressly mention the amount of ₹95,000 payable under the cheque.

The Trial Court examined the evidence and held that the statutory notice did not satisfy the requirements of proviso (b) to Section 138 NI Act.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

The complainant challenged the acquittal before the Kerala High Court.

The appellant argued that omission of the amount should not invalidate the notice because there was only one transaction between the parties and the accused knew the amount involved.

The respondent contended that the statute specifically requires a demand for the cheque amount and strict compliance is mandatory.

The Kerala High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused.

The Court examined the language used in proviso (b) to Section 138 NI Act.

It noted that the statute expressly requires the payee to "make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money."

The Court observed that the phrase clearly mandates that the notice must specifically mention the amount payable pursuant to the dishonoured cheque.

It held that prosecution under Section 138 is a deemed offence, which becomes complete only after fulfilment of all statutory requirements.

The Court emphasized that issuance of a valid demand notice is one of the essential statutory conditions.

It observed that unless the amount is specifically stated, the recipient cannot know precisely what amount must be paid to avoid criminal consequences.

The Court rejected the appellant's contention that the accused could infer the amount from surrounding circumstances.

It held that statutory compliance cannot be substituted by assumptions, implications, or knowledge of prior transactions.

The Court ruled that a notice omitting the cheque amount is incomplete and legally defective.

Consequently, such a notice cannot be treated as a valid notice in the eye of law under Section 138 NI Act.

Therefore, the appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was affirmed.

The judgment reinforces the principle of strict statutory compliance in cheque dishonour prosecutions.

The Court correctly emphasized that Section 138 creates a deemed criminal offence, making compliance with procedural requirements indispensable.

By insisting upon specific mention of the cheque amount, the Court safeguarded the drawer's statutory right to make payment within fifteen days and avoid criminal prosecution.

The decision clarifies that legal requirements cannot be satisfied through assumptions regarding the parties' knowledge of the transaction.

The ruling strengthens certainty and uniformity in the drafting of statutory demand notices.

The Court adopted a textual interpretation of the phrase "said amount of money", ensuring fidelity to legislative intent.

The judgment highlights that criminal liability under the NI Act arises only when all statutory conditions precedent are fulfilled.

The decision serves as an important reminder to practitioners that even minor defects in statutory notices may prove fatal to prosecution.

The ruling contributes significantly to jurisprudence concerning the validity and contents of notices under Section 138 NI Act.