A Section 138 demand notice must specify the cheque amount to be valid.

The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹45,000, agreed to repay it by 11 August 2013, and issued a cheque that was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The complainant sent a demand notice, but the accused did not pay; he admitted issuing the cheque, its dishonour, and service of notice, while asserting that the cheque had been issued in 2003

The trial court acquitted the accused, finding a material alteration to the cheque’s date.

The complainant appealed, contending that the alteration was initialled by the accused

Whether the trial court’s acquittal based on the alleged material alteration to the cheque warranted appellate interference

Whether the demand notice was valid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when it did not specify the cheque amount

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires, among other things, a cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, its timely presentation and dishonour, a written demand for payment, and the drawer’s failure to pay within the prescribed period

Sections 118 and 139 provide presumptions in favour of the cheque holder, which the accused may rebut on a preponderance of probabilities; the appellate court may assess whether the defence has displaced those presumptions

An acquittal is not ordinarily disturbed where the trial court’s view is a reasonable one, though the appellate court may intervene where it is perverse or wholly unsustainable; the presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal

Under Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul, (2025) 259 Comp Cas 658, a statutory demand notice under Section 138 must specify the cheque amount; omission of that amount renders the notice invalid

The High Court held that the trial court was wrong to treat the alteration of the cheque date as unauthorised because the alteration was initialled by the accused

However, the demand notice merely required the accused to pay “his money” and did not state the amount payable

Applying Kaveri Plastics, the Court found that this omission failed to satisfy an essential requirement of Section 138, independently supporting the acquittal.

Accordingly, the acquittal did not warrant appellate interference

The respondent was directed to furnish a bail bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for six months in accordance with Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure