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

THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Nalinakshan – Appellant
Versus
Rameshan – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sheji P. Abraham, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M/s. V.N. Ramesan Nambisan and M.K. Pushpalatha, Public Prosecutors.

ORDER

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—On a complaint preferred by the petitioner, learned Magistrate found that cheque for Rs. 1,00,000 issued by the first respondent for discharge of legally enforceable debt/liability was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds in spite of petitioner intimating dishonour and demanding payment of the amount, first respondent did not pay the amount and thereby first respondent committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the Act’). He was convicted of the said offence but instead of sentencing him as provided in the Act. He was released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act (for short ‘the PO Act’) on executing bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties for the like sum each to appear and receive sentence which called upon during a period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. That part of the judgment is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the complainant.

2. The questions raised are whether a revision at the instance of the petitioner who could have challenged the impugned order by way of appeal is maintainable and whether, it is expedient in the end

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