Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN
Vijayan. P., S/o Late Pappu – Appellant
Versus
George And Company – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under section 138 of n.i. act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on joint trial legitimacy (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observations on revisional power (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. dismissal of the revision petition (Para 11) |
ORDER :
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
The revision petitioner is the accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I Act’ for short).
2. The trial court convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for seven months and to pay a compensation of Rs.7,23,500/- and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellate court, as per judgment dated 15.09.2020 in Crl. Appeal No. 193 of 2015, confirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to undergo simple imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs.7,23,500/- and in default of payment of compensation, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
3. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the trial is vitiated, in as much as the trial court conducted joint trial of the dishonour of 5 cheques in violation of Section 219 Cr.P.C.
4. Heard Sri. M. Shaju Purushothaman, the learn
Joint trials for multiple cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are permissible if they are related to the same transaction, as upheld by the courts.
A single complaint can be filed for multiple cheques under Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. if they relate to the same transaction, and the presumption of correctness of bank slips under Section 146 of the....
A single complaint for dishonour of multiple cheques is maintainable if a consolidated notice of demand is served, as they constitute one offence upon failure to pay.
Concurrent findings in criminal liability cases require clear evidence for revision; absence of perversity limits appellate interference.
Concurrent findings under Section 138 NI Act upheld; no interference absent perversity in evidence evaluation.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption favoring the complainant.
The High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts without clear evidence of error or perversity.
It has been settled in law that the accused can either adduce independent evidence or rely on the evidence tendered by the complainant to rebut the presumptions.
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
