Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN
Noorudheen S/o Yusaf Ghani – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The short point raised in this revision is that the dictum laid down by this Court in Saju v. Shalimar Hardwares, Kattanam [2025 KHC OnLine 719] requires reconsideration because three decisions of the Apex Court (Vinod Shivappa v. Nanda Belliappa [2006 KHC 840], C C Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another [2007 (2) KHC 932] and M/s Indo Automobiles v. M/s. Jai Durga Enterprises and Others [2008 (3) KHC 815]) and two decisions of this Court (Komala Unnikrishnan v. Manoj Kumar K. [2023 KHC 783] and Sarath C v. Muthoot Leasing and Finance Ltd. [2024 KHC 7092]) were not considered by this Court while delivering the above judgment.
2. I will first narrate the facts in this case: The revision petitioner is the accused in ST No.114/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II, Alathur. The above case was filed by the 2nd respondent herein alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”). (Hereinafter, the revision petitioner is mentioned as the accused and the 2nd respondent is mentioned as the complainant).
3. The case of the complainant is that, the accused borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- f
Service of notice under Section 138 must be to the accused directly; notice served to a relative without proof of the accused's knowledge is insufficient for conviction.
Dishonour of cheque – Complainant is not required to prove service of notice on accused before institution of case—Requirement of giving notice is a clear departure from rule of criminal law, where t....
The presumption of service of legal notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies, and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is premature if filed before the st....
Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is valid if delivered to a family member, establishing liability unless rebutted.
Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is presumed when sent to the correct address, placing the burden on the accused to prove non-receipt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the proper service of demand notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, and the consequences of such service on the acquittal of th....
Negotiable Instruments – Factum of disputed service of notice requires adjudication on the basis of evidence and the same can only be done and appreciated by the trial court and not by this Court und....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
