Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. (1) ONE G. Sreenivasan the petitioner herein was the accused in c. C. No. 5982 of 1991 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town madras. He, it is said, borrowed a sum of Rs. 16,000 on 10. 4. 1991 from one M. Sarguru the respondent/complainant herein agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 18 per cent per annum. Demands appeared to have been emerged from the complainant on several occasions for the repayment of the sum borrowed and consequently the accused was stated to have issued a cheque dated 11. 7. 1991 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 as part payment of the amount due to the complainant. The cheque so issued was stated to have been presented for encashments by the complainant with his bankers and he was stated to have received a bankers advice dated 8. 8. 1991 on 14. 8. 1991 informing him that the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. On 19. 8. 1991 the complaintant caused a legal notice demanding payment of Rs. 16,720 comprising the principal amount and interest accrued due, including the sum of Rs. 10,000 for which a cheque has been issued as part payment towards the discharge of the debt. The accused received the notice on 24. 8. 1991. Thereafter he is said to have sent a letter dated 16. 9. 1991 requesting two months time for payment. The complainant on his part waiting for the statutory period of fifteen days for days for the demand made to be complied with which ended on 8. 9. 1991 resorted to launchprosecution by the presentation of a complaint for the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act) which was taken on file in the aforesaid calendar case. (2) ON receipt of process, the petitioner-accused came forward with the present action by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. (3) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would with all vehemence contend that the statutory notice stated to have been given is suffering from the serious infirmity of a lacuna in the sense of not complying with the requirements contemplated by Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act. (3) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would with all vehemence contend that the statutory notice stated to have been given is suffering from the serious infirmity of a lacuna in the sense of not complying with the requirements contemplated by Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act. In elaboration of this argument what he would state is that the demand made in the notice is far in excess of the sum required to be paid as a consequence of the dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds and therefore it is that such a notice cannot at all be construed to be strictly in accordance with the compliance of the aforesaid statutory requirement and in such a situation it is but proper for this court to entertain this petition and quash the proceedings initiated against him. (4) THE submission as such on the face of it appears to wear a look of tenability but a cursory perusal of the aforesaid statutory requirement in the light of the facts and circumstances would expose the ugliness taking shelter under such a submission. No doubt true it is that as per the statutory requirement the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque as the case may be has to make a demand for the payment of the amount specified in the cheque which was dishonoured for the insufficiency of the funds by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid. The specific averments in the complaint reveal that the event of dishonour for insufficiency of funds occurred on 14. 8. 1991. A statutory notice had been given within four days from the date of receipt of the bankers advice i. e. on 19. 8. 1991. In such a contingency it cannot be stated that the notice had been given far beyond the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of the information from the banker as to the dishonour of the cheque. (5) NO doubt the notice demands payment of Rs. 16,720 to be paid within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice infact as revealed by the averments in the complaint had been received by the accused on 24. 8. (5) NO doubt the notice demands payment of Rs. 16,720 to be paid within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The notice infact as revealed by the averments in the complaint had been received by the accused on 24. 8. 1991 and the further revelation is that no amount had been paid after the expiry of the fifteen days from he date of receipt of the notice which event happened on 8. 9. 1991. It is not as if the notice did not furnish the particulars of the amount demanded namely Rs. 16,720 it specifically recites that the payment to be due from the accused towards the dishonour of the cheque for the insufficiency of funds amounts to Rs. 10,000 besides the payment of Rs. 6,720 representing the balance of the principal amount and interest for four months. The notice so issued must have to be construed as a composite notice intended for restorment to actions both civil and criminal. In such state of affairs it cannot be stated that the accused was not put on notice as to the amount to be paid by him within the statutory period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice for the dishonour of the cheque he had issued. As already stated having himself admittedly failed to comply with the demand in the sense of making available the funds before the statutory period it cannot at all be stated that there was no compliance of the statutory requirement expected of from the complainant for the incitation or launching of a prosecution for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. (6) AS such the petition deserves to be dismissed even at the admission stage and the same is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.