JUDGMENT : T.P. Sharma, J. By this criminal revision applicant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 29/9/2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, in criminal appeal No. 33/2007 affirming the judgment of conviction of applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act of 1881') and setting aside the sentence of imprisonment of 3 months by maintaining the sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari vide judgment dated 5/12/2007 in criminal case No. 264/06. 2. Judgment is impugned on the ground that both the Courts below has not considered the question of law involved in the present case is that the applicant have been convicted and sentenced for the offence which he has not committed. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision as per complaint of the respondent present applicant has issued cheque No. 053208 on 4/5/01 in discharge of liability of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the respondent same was presented before Bank which was dishonored the cheque then applicant was served with the notice relating to cheque No. 053208. On failing to make the payment so demanded, the respondent has filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. 4. After affording an opportunity of hearing the parties learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari has convicted and sentenced the applicant. Applicant has preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari. Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari has affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence awarded to applicant. Both the Courts below have arrived at finding that applicant has issued the cheque No. 055208 but as a mistake the number of the cheque has been mentioned in complaint and notice as 053208. 5. Learned counsel for the parties are heard. Judgment impugned and record of the Court below perused. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that applicant was under obligation to discharge the liability incurred cheque No. 055208 and not in the cheque No. 053208. Respondent has served the notice to the applicant for discharge of liability incurred in relation to the cheque No. 053208. Respondent has also filed the complaint in relation to cheque No. 053208 but has filed cheque No. 055208 which was dishonored by the Bank. Respondent has served the notice to the applicant for discharge of liability incurred in relation to the cheque No. 053208. Respondent has also filed the complaint in relation to cheque No. 053208 but has filed cheque No. 055208 which was dishonored by the Bank. Therefore, in absence of any notice on demand in terms of under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 relating to cheque No. 055208 present applicant is not liable for commission of any offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance in the matter of Kumar Exports v. Sharma 2009(2) SCC 513 (SC) Carpets in which Apex Court has held that complainant is required to prove the fact that cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability but if complainant himself made declaration to the Sales Tax Department that no sale had taken place then same would be sufficient displacement of the presumption. Learned counsel for the applicant further placed reliance in the matter of K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana 2003(8) SCC 300 in which Apex Court has held that in case of difference between the cheque amount and loan amounts the notice is not valid notice interims of Section 138 of the Act of 1881. Learned counsel for the applicant also placed reliance in the matter of Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal & Anr. 2000 (2) MPHT 411 (SC) in which Apex Court has held that complainant is required to make specific term of the notice and notice has to be read as a whole. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the criminal revision and submits that only on the ground of clerical mistake applicant is not entitled for acquittal. In the present case only one cheque has been issued by the applicant but by mistake erroneously wrong number has been mentioned in the complaint and notice. 9. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, I have examined oral and documentary evidence of the parties. In the present case cheque No. 053208 has been mentioned in a notice Ex. P-5 and complaint made by the respondent but no such cheque was produced by the respondent. Respondent had produced the cheque No. 055208 as Ex. P-2 bearing the signature of the applicant. In the present case cheque No. 053208 has been mentioned in a notice Ex. P-5 and complaint made by the respondent but no such cheque was produced by the respondent. Respondent had produced the cheque No. 055208 as Ex. P-2 bearing the signature of the applicant. Respondent has specifically deposed in his evidence that applicant has issued the cheque Ex. P-2 in his favour. He has admitted in Para-3 of his cross examination that he has mentioned the cheque No. 053208 in his complaint and notice but he has not filed or produced such cheque in his evidence. Accused/applicant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which while answering the question No. 5 applicant has specifically answered that he has issued the cheque No. 053208 which has been mentioned by the respondent in his complaint. Question No. 5 and answer given by the applicant reads as follows:- iz'u 5% blh lk{kh dk dguk gS fd mDr psd izn'kZ ih- 2 rFkk QksVks izfr izn'kZ ih- 2 lh gSA vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mRrj % eSusa ifjoknh dks 053208] psd dzekad esa gh fn;k Fkk tks ifjokn irj esa fy[kk gSA While answering the question No. 9 & 11 applicant has specifically replied that wrong cheque number was mentioned in the notice therefore he is not liable the notice. Questions No. 9 & 11 with its answer reads as follows:- iz'u 9 % blh lk{kh dk dguk gS fd mlus vkidks jde dh vnk;xh uksfVl fHktok;k Fkk tks izn'kZ ih- 5 dkcZu izfr gSA vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mRrj % uksfVl esa psd dza- xyr fy[kk Fkk bl dkj.k tcko ugha fn;k x;kA iz'u 11 % blh lk{kh dk dguk gS fd uksfVl izkflr ds mijkar Hkh vkids }kjk iSlk vnk ugha fd;k x;kA vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mRrj % psd dk uacj xyr Fkk] blh dkj.k uksfVl ds tcko ugha fn;kA 10. As held in case of Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (Supra) that complainant is required to prove the fact that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability and such presumption may be displaced. By adducing evidence in the present case, only number of cheque is different specially relating to one figure instead of second figure 5, figure 3 has been mentioned in the notice and the complaint. By adducing evidence in the present case, only number of cheque is different specially relating to one figure instead of second figure 5, figure 3 has been mentioned in the notice and the complaint. The case of Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (Supra) is distinguishable on the grounds of facts. 11. In case of K.R. Indira v. Dr. G. Adinarayana (Supra) the notice is required to read as a whole. Para-8 reads as follows:- "It is well settled principle of law that the notice has to be read as a whole. In the notice, demand has to be made for the "Said amount" i.e. cheque amount. If no such demand is made the notice no doubt would fall short of its legal requirement. Where in additional to "Said amount" there is also a claim by way of interest, cost etc. whether the notice is bad would depend on the language of the notice. If in a notice while giving up break up of the claim the cheque amount, interest, damages etc. are separately specified, other such claims for interest, cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice. If, however, in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonored cheque, notice might well fail to meet the legal requirement and may be regarded as bad." By reading the notice as a whole it is clearly established that applicant has issued the cheque of Rs. 75,000/- on 4/5/01 and respondent has demanded the aforesaid amount along with cost only crucial question involved in this case is whether what would be effected difference in number of the cheque mentioned in notice, complaint and in cheque Ex. P-2. 12. In the present case according to evidence of the respondent during the period of transaction only one cheque was issued by the applicant in the name of the respondent of the amount of Rs. P-2. 12. In the present case according to evidence of the respondent during the period of transaction only one cheque was issued by the applicant in the name of the respondent of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- which was dishonored by the bank although applicant has admitted while replying the question No. 5 in his examination that he has issued the cheque No. 053208 but in reply of questions No. 9 & 11 he has specifically made it clear that on the ground of wrong cheque number was mentioned in notice he has not sent the reply to the complainant, it shows that applicant was having knowledge the right number of the cheque but he has not replied the notice on the ground that right cheque was not mentioned in the notice if the notice is read as a whole then it would be sufficient for drawing an inference that only one cheque of Rs. 75,000/- was issued by the applicant in favour of the respondent. In the light of the evidence of PW1 respondent Nirmal Bardiya that the cheque Ex. P-2 issued by the respondent. 13. After appreciating the evidence available on record Court below has maintained the conviction and modified the sentence only on the ground of clerical mistake of the number of the cheque. The claim of the respondent cannot be thrown away when the facts well within the knowledge of the applicant, Court below has rightly maintained the conviction of the applicant, I do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned. Court below has neither exceeded the jurisdiction vested on it nor failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it. Consequently, this criminal revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.