Analysis of High Court of Tripura Judgment in Shri Subal Chandra Ghosh vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is very plain and simple and it does not speak about that the notice is to be sent through advocate. It is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.

The language of proviso-B of Section 138 is very plain and simple and it does not speak about that the notice is to be sent through advocate. It is the payee or the holder who will make the demand in writing.

Neither in Rahul Builders (Supra) nor in Suman Sethi (Supra) the Apex Court has held that the notice have to be served through only the Advocate. The said authorities only laid the principles that the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act have to be followed and the contents about the amount of the cheque and demand of cost, interest and other expenses must be in specific terms to subserve the requirements of Section 138 of the N.I. Act. So according to me, the citation as referred to and relied upon by the learned Sr. counsel will not help him in any manner in deciding the points raised in this appeal.

Judgement link : https://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=/orders/2016/216800000352016_4.pdf&caseno=Crl.Rev.P./35/2016&cCode=1&appFlag=