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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 286

R.BASANT
Muthulakshmi Amma – Appellant
Versus
P. K. Prabhakaran – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Rinny Stephen Chamaparampil, Advocate. For the Respondent:B. Renjithkumar, Advocate.

Judgment :

Petitioner in this case is the mother of the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The said complainant is not available in India and is working abroad. A power of attorney holder of the complainant has been examined as a witness(PW1) on the side of the complainant. Such power of attorney holder in the course of evidence tendered by him, had stated that the accused has his house near the house of the mother of the complainant, i.e. the petitioner herein. The accused has a case that he has nothing to do with the complainant and that the complainant is a total stranger to him. It is in that context that the power of attorney(witness) was cross examined and the witness gave the answer that the complainants mother has her house at Karthikappally and the house of the accused is near the said house of the petitioner herein.

2. On the basis of the said statement of PW1, the accused filed an application that the petitioner, i.e., the mother of the complainant, be examined as a defence witness. That prayer was allowed by the learned Magistrate and summons was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner in these circumstances went to the Ma








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