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

2015 Supreme(Ker) 1306

P.D.RAJAN
Shiju K. – Appellant
Versus
Nalini – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
For the Respondent: Madhuben, Public Prosecutor and Sunny Mathew.

ORDER :

P.D. Rajan, J.

1. This revision petition is preferred by the accused against the judgment in Criminal Appeal 150/02 of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. Revision Petitioner was accused in CC 351/99 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-V, Kozhikode for having committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act). The complainant's case is that, accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,17,500/- from the complainant and in discharge of that debt, he issued Ext. P1 cheque. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient. The complainant demanded the due amount by giving a notice in writing, but after notice, there was no repayment of the due amount, hence he filed a complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode. During trial, complainant was examined as PW1 and his documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate convicted the accused under Section 1
















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