S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J. ( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petitions 69 to 72 of 2000 are consolidated for The purpose of disposal by a common order, as the facts are the same and the legal contentions are also the same. ( 2 ) THE petitioner who is one of the Directors of M/s. Guruvayurappan textiles (P) Limited, is stated to have issued the cheques referred to in favour of the complainant M/s. Sree Balaji Cotton Industries, by its proprietor Mr. V. Ravikumar and the cheques on presentation was bounced. A notice was issued calling upon the Company M/s. Guruvayurappan textiles Private Limited, to make good the amounts for which the cheques had been issued, within the time limited by law, the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The magistrate took cognizance for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act and issued summons to the accused. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner is seeking to challenge the orders of the Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing summons to the accused on the ground that the cheques in respect of which the complaints are filed, were all blank cheques given by way of security; that without an allegation about the petitioner being personally in charge of the affairs of the Company, the complainant could not have arrayed the petitioner alone as the accused and that the notice of demand by the complainant could not include notice charges and consequently the proceedings are to be quashed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. ( 4 ) SO far as the contention that blank cheques were issued are concerned, it is still a contention only as on the day, when the cheques were presented for encashment, they were complete. Even otherwise, where the drawer gives blank cheques, the complainant in this case, in law, is entitled to fill it up and make a demand. This contention in the circumstance is prima facie untenable. However, it would be open to the petitioner to demonstrate that blank cheques were given when the parties go to trial. The other contention ought to be raised on a decision in State of Haryana v Brij Lal Mittal and Others. The observations at para 9 of the judgment are clearly inapplicable to the facts of the case as the petitioner is the person who has issued the cheques in question. The other contention ought to be raised on a decision in State of Haryana v Brij Lal Mittal and Others. The observations at para 9 of the judgment are clearly inapplicable to the facts of the case as the petitioner is the person who has issued the cheques in question. The petitioner, cannot, on the basis of the observations in the aforesaid case before the Supreme Court, contend that he would not also be liable to answer the complainant. What is the effect on non-impleading of other directors of the company, at this stage, cannot be speculated upon. It would be open to him to raise all such contentions at the trial. ( 5 ) THE other contention that is sought to be raised is on the basis of a decision of the Calcutta High Court in United Credits Limited v M/s. Agro Sales India, that a demand for cost of Notice charges vitiated the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. ( 6 ) APART from the fact that this decision is one of persuasive value, it has to be noticed that interpretation of a notice of demand as the one contemplated under Section 138 of the Act cannot be different from any other notice. If the notice conforms to the requirement of a notice under section 138 of the Act by disclosing the amount for which the cheque has been issued and dishonoured, in addition to claims such as the charges that are levied by the Bank for correspondence regarding the realisation of the cheque and notice charges, it cannot be said that the notice under section 138 of the Act, is vitiated especially when the respective claims are severable. ( 7 ) A catena of decisions support the view that notices cannot be interpreted in a pedantic manner and has to be interpreted in a manner that is understood, or expected to be understood, by the party to whom the notice is issued. A strict interpretation of a notice as is sought to be done in the decision referred to above does not serve the object of Section 138 of the Act and would on the other hand defeat it. The validity of the notice is again a question of fact to be enquired into at the trial. A strict interpretation of a notice as is sought to be done in the decision referred to above does not serve the object of Section 138 of the Act and would on the other hand defeat it. The validity of the notice is again a question of fact to be enquired into at the trial. ( 8 ) IN the circumstances, there is no merit in the petitions filed under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and they are dismissed. --- *** --- .