CHENNAI: A simple typographical error in mentioning the cheque number in a legal notice issued under the Negotiable Instruments Act has heavily cost a litigant, as his case was dismissed by a lower court and the High Court, as well.
Instead of the correct cheque No. 361868, it was mentioned as 361838 in the notice dated April 17, 2013 issued by Velukannan to Mohamad Irfan in Alandur.
There is no mist or cloud or shroud or any manner of simmering doubt in regard to the language employed in Sec. 138 of the NI Act, Justice M Venugopal observed. Admittedly, the legal notice will have to be read in its entirety. In the present case, no correction notice was issued on behalf of the complainant to the accused. Certainly, the incorrect mentioning of the cheque in the notice did not fulfill the requirement under Sec. 138(b) of the NI Act. In as much as the notice was not in conformity with the cheque, as a legal corollary, the complaint filed by the appellant is per se not maintainable in law, the judge said and dismissed the appeal from Irfan, recently.
According to appellant, he had lent Rs 8 lakh to Velukannan, who returned Rs 2 lakh. For remaining Rs 6 lakh, he issued a cheque dated March 22, 2013, which bounced. Appellant issued a legal notice in which the cheque number was wrongly mentioned as 361838. He also lodged a complaint before JM-II in Alandur, mentioning the correct cheque No. However, the JM dismissed the complaint after saying that there was a technical defect and that the provisions of the NI Act were not followed. Hence, the present appeal.
“In view of the aforesaid qualitative and quantitative discussions, this court comes to a consequent conclusion that the appellant had not established his case beyond all reasonable doubt,” Justice Venugopal said and dismissed the appeal.