appearing for the petitioner is that the demand in the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should confine to the cheque amount, but it shall not embarrass the entire debt allegedly became due from the accused to the complainant. In the present case the complainant specifically mentioned in the two notices issued by him that against the debt of Rs.3,00,000/- the petitioner/accused repaid an amount of Rs.60,000/- and only an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- under one cheque and an amount of Rs.1,10,000/- under the other remained unpaid and thus he demanded total amount of Rs.2,40,000/- in the two notices, it cannot be said that the petitioner/accused was mislead by the notices or that they were in any way prejudicial to the interest of the accused so that on receiving the said notices the accused landed in confession to understand as to what was the amount he had to pay in respect of each cheque. Since the accused made part payment of Rs.60,000/- the first respondent/complainant made a mention about the same in his two notices and only demanded Rs.1,30,000/- under each of the cheques which were dishonoured. Each of the said cheques were in fact for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. The first respondent/complainant fairly admitted the part payment made by the accused and stated the same in his two statutory notices sent to the accused. In all the judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the statutory notices contain a demand for more than the cheque amount. But, in the instant case, the statutory notices issued by the first respondent/complainant contain demand of less than the cheque amount. Therefore, I see no substance in the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused that the notices issued by the first respondent/complainant do not comply the requirements of Section 138-B of the Act.
