Section 138 notice must demand only the balance actually due after part-payment, not the original cheque amount.

A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable where part-payment made before presentation reduces the legally payable liability, but the cheque is still presented for the original full amount and the statutory notice demands that full sum without crediting the payment. The cheque must reflect the amount actually due on the date of presentation, and the notice under Section 138(b) must demand only the principal amount payable. Section 56 contemplates endorsement for part-payment, and a notice demanding more than the balance due, without disclosing the excess, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be sustained where, before presentation of the cheque, the drawer has made part-payment reducing the legally payable liability, yet the cheque is presented and the statutory notice demands the full cheque amount without disclosing or crediting the part-payment.

Analysis: The cheque must correspond to the amount actually payable on the date of presentation, and the notice under Section 138(b) must demand the principal amount due from the drawer. Where part-payment has reduced the liability, presentation of the cheque for the entire original amount and a demand notice claiming that full amount, without acknowledging the payment already received, does not satisfy the statutory requirement. Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act contemplates endorsement in cases of part-payment, and the penal provision must be construed strictly. A notice that seeks more than the amount actually payable, without indicating the basis for the excess, is not a valid demand notice for the purposes of Section 138.

Conclusion: The complaints were not maintainable under Section 138 because the notices demanded amounts exceeding the sums actually payable after crediting the part-payments, and the cheques had been presented for more than the legally due balance.

---