Notice given by Advocate without his signature is not invalid in the eyes of law.
The object of issuing notice is absolutely clear from the reading of Sec. 138. The object and purpose is to give an information to the person who had issued the cheque that the said cheque was dishonored, so as to facilitate him to make good the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of such information from the holder of the cheque. Whether that purpose is achieved is the only question that arises for consideration. Similar is the object under S. 80 of the CPC, wherein the Government should be given notice of 2 months, so as to settle the claim of the person who has got issued the notice. In this case also, the advocate has given full description of the respondent and he has also stated the particulars of the cheque and also the fact that the same was dishonored by the bank when presented by the respondent for want of sufficient funds and he also requested him to pay that amount within 15 days failing which he would proceed against him under Sec. 138 of the Act, etc. From this detailed description it is abundantly clear that the petitioner had come to know of the purpose for which the notice was issued by the advocate. Therefore, the learned advocate had satisfied all the necessary ingredients of Section 138 of the Act, but only by mistake he had not signed the notice. Therefore, that itself would not in any way lead to come to a conclusion that the notice issued by the advocate without his signature is invalid in the eye of law. Hence, the argument of the learned counsel for the petr. is unsustainable.