IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2008 / 11TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 355 of 2004() ----------------------------- ST.1152/1996 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- SAIDALAVI, S/O.PUTHIYAMALIYAKKAL IMBICHI, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI RESPONDENT: ACCUSED --------------------------- IMBICHIBAVA, S/O.KEZHAKKANALAKATH MUHAMMEDKUTTY @ BAVA, RAYIRIMANGALAM AMSOM DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.355 of 2004-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of January, 2008. O R D E R 1.By the impugned order, a complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed apparently applying the precedent of the Calcutta High Court in Gopa Devi Ozha v. Sujit Paul [1996 (2) KLT 886]. That was a case where an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- was claimed as against the cheque amount of Rs.5,79,000/-. Noticing the facts of that case, the Division Bench of this Court in Kunjan Panicker v. Christudas [1997 (2) KLT 539] held that Gopa Devi Ozha(supra) could well be said to be a case where there was no proper or valid notice demanding payment of the amount under the dishonoured cheque. A still later decision, in Raj v. Rajan [1997 (1) KLT 302], to the extent it observed CRRP.355/04 -: 2 :- regarding the amounts due under the cheque and the notice that fell for consideration in that case, was in the realm of 'obiter' being outside the range of controversy in that case. Laying to rest the controversies, the Division Bench in Kunjan Panicker (supra) categorically laid down that a notice of demand in terms of proviso (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be vague, insufficient or bad even if, together with the amount due under the dishonoured cheque, interest without specifying the amount or the rate and incidental cost had also been claimed. 2.In view of what is stated above, the impugned order dismissing the complaint on the basis of the decision in Gopa Devi Ozha (supra) is only to be set aside because the amount claimed included only such materials as would fall within the permitted parameters, going by the decision in Kunjan Panicker's case. CRRP.355/04 -: 3 :- 3.In the result, this revision petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and restoring S.T.1152/1996 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tirur. The court below will proceed to decide the said case afresh in accordance with law, in the light of what is stated above. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/ CRRP.355/04 -: 4 :- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.355 of 2004-D = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = JUDGMENT Dated: 1st January, 2008.