As per case facts... The drawer issued a cheque for one unit of currency (e.g., a million), but after it bounced, the payee's statutory demand notice under Proviso (b) to ... Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, demanded two units of currency (e.g., two million). The drawer's subsequent application for quashing the complaint, arguing the notice was invalid, was dismissed by the Magistrate but allowed by the High Court. The payee appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the discrepancy was merely a typographical error. The question arose... whether a statutory demand notice under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the NI Act, which demands an amount different from the dishonoured cheque amount, is invalid in law, and whether claiming a typographical error is a legally acceptable defence. Finally... the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision. It held that the penal nature of the statute requires a strict construction, and the phrase "the said amount of money" in Proviso (b) must precisely refer to the cheque amount (one unit of currency). Any demand for a different amount, including a higher amount, renders the notice invalid, and the payee's claim of a mere typographical error (which occurred and recurred in both notices) is fatal and cannot be accepted for mandatory strict compliance