B.KEMAL PASHA
V. Muralidharan – Appellant
Versus
V. A. Kumaran – Respondent
(1) In the case of an offence under section 138 of the N.I Act, is there any distinction between a situation wherein a person after issuing a cheque to another, closes that account, and a situation wherein a person after closing the account with the bank, manages to issue a cheque to another from that account he had already closed?
(2) In the case of an offence under section 138 of the N.I Act, is there any distinction between a situation wherein a person after closing the account with the bank, manages to issue a cheque to another from that account he had already closed, and a situation wherein a person issues a cheque to another without the knowledge that the bank on its own volition had closed that account?
(3) What should be the extend of 'application of mind' by a Magistrate for invoking the power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.?
2. The appellant is the complainant in C.C.No.255 of 2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Chavakkad, who has come in appeal by challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thrissur, in Crl.Appeal No.22 of 2006. The 1st respondent herein is the accused in C.C.No.255 of 2002 of the Judicial
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.