SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

G.N.RAY, B.L.HANSARIA
K. K. Sidharthan – Appellant
Versus
T. P. Praveena Chandran – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:C.N. Sree Kumar and Shaju Francis, Advocates.
For the Eespondents:T.T. Kunhikannan and Shakar Ahmed Syed, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Hansaria, J.-Respondent No.1, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, filed a complaint against the appellant under Section 138 read with 149 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short the 'Act') and Section 420 of the IPC read with Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The gravamen of the allegation is that the petitioner had issued two post-dated cheques dated 10.10.1994 and 31.12.1994, each for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Trichur Branch. But on the cheques being presented, the same were returned unpaid on 15.10.1994 with the endorsement "Payment countermanded by the drawer". The complaint further stated that the cheques were returned unpaid for want of sufficient funds in the account. The appellant approached the High Court of Kerala for quashing the complaint but the High Court refused to do so. Hence this appeal.

2. The main part of Section 138 of the Act reads as below:

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds in the account. -Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top