Sec 138 clarification

what ever is mentioned in the cheque is legally enforceable debt, and complaint will be filed on the same, the burden of proof is on the accused to say he owes only lesser amount than mentioned on the cheque, and evidence also says so. i donot understand when the complainant  has a evidence for lesser amount,why should he file a case for higher amount,or the complainant is suppressing the evidence,which is available for only lesser amount?.

Thanks for your reply Mr. Raghavan.

In this case, the complainant had obtained the cheque (for a lump sum round number) in advance and could provide evidence for only a part of the lump sum. So, does this fall under the ambit of sec 138 ? I would think not.

Basically, do we have precedents of such cases where the cheque amount is in excess of the liability claimed ?

Sec 138 will attract only for the cases where there is a legal liability of debt.  If the complainant has answer only for a lower amount and if it is proved that accused is not liable to pay the amount as has been shown in the cheque, it clearly reflects that the instrument has been materially altered or fabricated for wrong gains hence the complainant stands to lose the case and if the court believes or has been provided with substantial evidence that there is no legally liable debt to the extent of the amount in the cheque and if the court is satisfied, the court may dismiss the complaint, there is no such thing called a part liability hence the case can be decided accordingly.   

Thank You Mr. Kalaiselvan. That was my take on it as well. Basically if the complainant claims Rs 2 lakh to be the liability but produces a Rs 5 lakh cheque, he might move any other civil suit but sec 138 in this case is not applicable. Hope am right.

I filly agree with Mr. Kalaiselvan, you will loose the case if the accused is successful in proving that the amount endorsed in the instrument is fabricated and/or not legally recoverable debt.