typographical error - The Legal Chamber

In a significant ruling under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Supreme Court held that a demand notice under Section 138 Proviso (b) must specify the exact cheque amount. Demanding a different sum, even due to a typographical error, renders the notice legally invalid and fatal to the complaint, as the provision mandates strict compliance. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Kaveri Plastics, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The case originated from a Memorandum of Understanding related to the sale of land. As part of this agreement, the accused company issued a cheque for Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in favour of the appellant. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to "insufficient fund...

The Supreme Court held that a criminal complaint can be amended post-cognizance if it cures a curable infirmity and causes no prejudice to the accused. The amendment should not alter the complaint's fundamental nature. The test of prejudice is the cardinal factor, and procedural rules are subservient to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bansal Milk Chilling Centre, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that three cheques issued by the respondents, Rana Milk Food Private Ltd., for a sum of ₹14 lakhs were dishonored. The complaint stated the transaction was for the purchase of "Desi Ghee (milk products)." After summons were issued and the complainant's chief-examination was concluded, the appellant sought to amend th...

Tag: typographical error

Cheque Bounce Notice Must Demand Exact Cheque Amount, Rules Supreme Court

Supreme Court Simplifies Amendment Rules for NI Act Complaints