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

2003 Supreme(Ker) 162

JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, KURIAN JOSEPH
K. K. Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
K. K. Parthasaradhy – Respondent


Judgment :-

Jawaharlal Gupta, C.J. (Oral)

Is the plea of limitation available to the accused in a case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this Revision Petition, which has been referred to a division Bench. A few facts may be noticed.

2. On May 31, 1991, the petitioner-accused had given a cheque for an amount of Rs. 75,000/- to the 1st respondent-complainant. It was presented to the Bank. It was returned with the remarks - "funds insufficient." The position was conveyed to the 1st respondent by a letter dated June 6, 1991. On June 17, 1991, the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. It was accepted by him. However, the amount was not paid. Thus, the 1st respondent filed the complaint against the petitioner in the court of chief judicial Magistrate, Kottayam.

3. After trial, the court vide its judgment dated April 26, 1995, held that he petitioner-accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He was awarded a punishment of fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In default of payment, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three months. Out of the fine, Rs.75, 0





























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