1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 265 OF 1997 Kiran Agencies, through Proprietor- Girish s/o Gangadhar Agrawal, aged about 47 years, R/o Ratanlal Plots, Akola. .. APPELLANT .. Versus .. 1. Sagarmal Nevatia & Sons, Registered Partnership Firm, Office at Rajurkar Compound, 1st Floor, Tilak Road, Akola and Branch Office at 2281, Raipura Gate, Ahemadabad. 2. Sushil s/o Sagarmal Nevatia, aged about 46 years, Occupation : Business, 2281, Raipura Gate, Ahemadabad. 3. Suresh s/o Sagarmal Nevatia, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Tilak Road, Akola. 4. Smt. Vidhyadevi w/o Sagarmal Nevatia, aged about 65 years, Occupation: Business, R/o Ramdaspeth, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola. 2 5. Smt. Nirmaladevi Gangadhar Nevatiaya, aged about 53 yrs. Occupation: Business, R/o Ramdaspeth, Akola, Tq. and Dist. Akola. 6. Smt. Ushadevi Suresh Nevatiya, aged about 38 years, Occupation : Business, R/o Ramdaspeth, Akola, tq. And district Akola. 7. State of Maharashtra .. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.G. Sarda, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3. None present for Respondents 4 to 6. Mr. P.D. Kothari, Advocate for Respondent No. 7. ... CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17 , 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.8.1996 passed by 5th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akola acquitting the respondents/accused persons for offence punishable under Section 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the present appeal was filed. 3 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the only question of law that arises is whether in the mandatory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, could the complainant/appellant demand an amount of Rs.93,373/- when admittedly the cheque in question was only for Rs.50,000/-. 3. No other question was argued before me and, therefore, I answer that the mandatory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act demanding an amount of Rs. 93,373/- as against the amount of Rs.50,000/- mentioned in the cheque in question is bad. The question has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Rahul Builders .vs. M/s Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical- 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3564 (S.C.). It is better to quote placitum “C” from the said judgment which reads thus:- “Dishonour of cheque- Notice of demand- Omnibus notice without specifying what was the amount due under dishonoured cheque would not subserve the requirement of law- Notice referring to outstanding amount of bills i.e. Rs. 8,72,409/- and not the specific 4 amount of Rs.1,00,000/- of dishonoured cheque- Notice is bad.” 4. In view of the above legal position I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) ...