IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2592 of 2008() ------------------------------ ST.531/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ K.P. ISMAYIL @ KOYAMON, S/O. MOIDEENKUTTY, KAYAMADATHIL PUTHANPEEDIKKAL HOUSE, HAJAMANZIL P.O. B.P. ANGADI, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SAIDALAVI BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.BEPIN VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- K.V. ABDULLA, S/O. ABOOBACKER, K.K. HOUSE, P.O. KUNHIMANGALAM ANGADI, KANNUR - 670 309 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, ALONG WITH CRL.R.P. NO. 2593 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. Nos. 2592 of 2008 and 2593 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4-8-2008 ORDER The common revision petitioner in these revisions is the common complainant in prosecutions under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 registered as S.T. Nos. 531 of 1997 and 4450 of 1996 respectively on the file of the J.F.C.M., Tirur. In both these cases, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint at the threshold holding that the statutory notices issued by the revision petitioner were not in conformity with the requirement in clause (c) of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for the reason that the notices issued to the accused contained more than the cheque amount by including the interest allegedly due thereon. The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court reported in 1996 (2) KLT 886 was relied on by the Magistrate. 2. A perusal of the notices produced along with the complaint shows that there is a clear demand of the cheque amount. Merely because over and above the cheque amount, something more was claimed by way of interest, it does not become a notice not contemplated by the statute. Moreover, the decision relied on by the learned Magistrate has since been Crl. R.P. Nos. 2592 of 2008 and 2593 of 2008 -:2:- overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in 1997 (2) KLT 701. The view which I am taking is also reinforced by the decision in 2007 (1) KLT 70. The impugned orders dismissing the complaints are set aside and the S.T. Cases shall stand restored to file. The revision petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 14-08-2008 by which time the petitioner shall have taken all necessary steps for the further progress of the complaints. Justice V. Ramkumar ani Crl. R.P. Nos. 2592 of 2008 and 2593 of 2008 -:3:- V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl. R.P. Nos. 2592 of 2008 and 2593 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 4-8-2008 ORDER