PROTIMA DUTTA KALITA v. SMTI RINA BORGOHAIN

What happened

The complainant lent ₹1,30,000, arranged from her self-help group, to the accused for her son's marriage, on a verbal promise to repay. On repeated requests, the accused issued cheque No. 463045 dated 16 December 2016 for ₹1,30,000 drawn on the State Bank of India, Dergaon Branch, and executed a handwritten note acknowledging the debt over revenue stamps. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat, convicted her on 21 February 2017 and sentenced her to one year with compensation of ₹3,00,000; the Sessions Judge upheld the conviction on 14 July 2025 in Crl.A. No. 3/2023 and reduced the sentence to six months and compensation of ₹2,60,000. Only two grounds were pressed in the revision under sections 438 and 442 of the BNSS.

Questions before the court

• Is the conviction vitiated because the date of the loan was not stated or because the statutory notice only advised payment instead of demanding it?

Why the court ruled this way

On the first ground, the accused had not denied her signature on the cheque, so the presumption under section 139 applied and it was not rebutted merely because the complainant did not give the exact date the money was paid; she had not discharged her burden of showing that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt (paragraph 5). On the second ground, proviso (b) to section 138 requires a notice in writing making a demand for payment within 15 days of information of dishonour (paragraph 10); the requirement is that the necessity to pay be clearly communicated and discernible from the notice as a whole, and the word advice is a polite use of language like request but must be treated as a demand if the notice conveys the requirement to pay (paragraph 11). The Court relied on Central Bank of India v. Saxons Farma, (1999) 8 SCC 221, where a polite expression was also held sufficient, and noted that this notice spelled out that failure to pay would lead the payee to approach the court under the NI Act (paragraph 12 and following).

Controlling point

A section 138 notice that advises payment and states the consequence of non-payment is a valid demand, and the accused did not rebut the presumption under section 139.

Order and next steps

The criminal revision petition was held devoid of merit and dismissed.

Practical implications

A complainant should word the notice so it clearly requires payment of the cheque amount and states the consequence; a drawer cannot defeat a notice by pointing to polite wording such as advise or request.

Limits of this ruling

• The ruling turns on the notice read as a whole and the unrebutted presumption; the revision court did not reappraise the evidence beyond the two grounds urged.