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

V.RAMKUMAR
Aravindakshan Nair – Appellant
Versus
Essen Bankers – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Gracious Kuriakose, Advocate.
For the Respondents: K.S. Sivakumar (Public Prosecutor).

ORDER

V. Ramkumar, J.—The petitioner herein is the revision petitioner/accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The request of the petitioner in this petition is to get the disputed signature in Ext.P10 compared with the admitted signatures of the petitioner by a handwriting expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The case of the first respondent complainant who is a money lender is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,25,000 as evidenced by Ext. P10 voucher dated 9.4.1999 and towards discharge of the said liability the accused issued Ext. P4 cheque dated 14.3.2002 for Rs. 6,10,000 and on presentation of the cheque in the drawee bank, it bounced.

3. The revision petitioner inter alia took up the stand that in relation to certain previous transactions with the complainant bank, five blank cheques were taken by the complainant from the revision petitioner and Ext. P4 cheque is one of those cheques and the signatures in Ext. P10 voucher as well as Ext. P4 cheque were forged.

4. The revision petitioner has a grievance that, one Advocate Mohan was engaged by him to appear for him in the Trial Court and the said Advoc











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