- (1.) This revisional petition is directed against the order dated 1st April, 1997, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, in Case No.C-1661 of 1996.
(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Opposite Party No. 1 appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a copy of the notice sent to him after bouncing of the cheque. Opposite party No. 1 contended that the said notice not only demanded the payment of Rs.20 lacs covered by the bounced cheques but also the incidental charges to the tune of Rs. 1,500/- plus notice charges. Hence the notice was bad in law and the complaint under Section 189 of the N.I. Act was not competent.
(3.) The learned trial Court placed reliance on the case of Gopa Debi Ojha v. Surjit Paul, 1996 C.CR.LR (Cal.) 40 = (1995) 2 Cal HN 37 and came to a finding that since the notice also included, an amount in excess of the amount covered by the cheque it was bad in law.;