Where cheque figures and words differ, a Section 138 notice must demand the amount stated in words.

The complainant alleged that she lent the accused ₹3,90,000 and received a cheque for that amount, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The cheque stated “Rupees Three Lakh Ninety only” in words but ₹3,90,000 in figures.

The complainant’s statutory notice demanded ₹3,90,000.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), but the Appellate Court set aside the conviction, holding that the notice demanded an amount different from the cheque amount.

The complainant sought leave to appeal against that decision.

Whether, under Section 18 of the NI Act, the amount stated in words governed where the cheque’s written amount differed from its amount in figures.

Whether the statutory notice was invalid because it demanded ₹3,90,000, rather than the amount stated in words on the cheque.

Whether the complainant had made out a case for leave to appeal against the Appellate Court’s decision.

Section 18 of the NI Act provides that where the amount payable on a negotiable instrument is stated differently in words and figures, the amount stated in words governs.

Under Section 138 and its proviso, the demand notice must seek payment of the cheque amount.

In *Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal*, (2000) 2 SCC 380, the Supreme Court held that a notice must demand the “said amount”—that is, the cheque amount—and that failure to make that demand renders the notice legally deficient.

The Court did not accept the contrary approach in *Nitesh Yadav v. State*, 2025 DHC 1580, or *Shyam Sunder Soni v. State of Rajasthan*, 2022 Cri LJ 1769.

Applying Section 18, the Court treated “Rupees Three Lakh Ninety only” as the cheque amount, namely ₹3,00,090, and not ₹3,90,000.

Because the notice demanded ₹3,90,000, it did not demand the amount legally payable under the cheque.

Applying *Suman Sethi*, the Court held that the discrepancy made the notice invalid and therefore supported the Appellate Court’s decision.

It declined to follow the cited contrary decisions, reasoning that the statutory rule required the notice to demand the amount stated in words.

It found no basis to grant leave to appeal, dismissed the leave application, and consequently disposed of the appeal.