Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
Caktis Marine – Appellant
Versus
Geejay Marine Works Represented By Its Proprietor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of procedural history and lower court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. submissions and contentions raised by the competing parties. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. standard of review in revision and the application of section 139 n.i. act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final adjudication on sentencing proportionality and dismissal of the revision. (Para 16) |
ORDER :
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, J.
The challenge in this revision petition is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I. Act”).
2. The revision petitioners are the accused in C.C. No. 826/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act Cases), Ernakulam.
3. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is a proprietary concern. The first accused is also a proprietary concern represented by the second accused, who is its proprietor. According to the complainant, the accused had agreed to supply glass materials to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,524/-. Pursuant to the said agreement, the complainant paid the
In a revision petition against a conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the High Court will not reappreciate evidence unless the lower court's findings are perverse, and statutory presumptions....
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act, once the execution of a cheque is admitted or proven, a presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant, and the burden shifts to t....
The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in nature and limited to correcting legal improprieties or perversity in findings; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence where trial and a....
In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the execution of the cheque is proved, a statutory presumption under Section 139 arises in favor of the complainant, placing....
In a Section 138 N.I. Act prosecution, once the execution of a cheque is proven, the statutory presumption under Section 139 shifts the burden to the accused; revisional courts will not interfere wit....
The court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting illegality and perversity; it cannot re-appreciate evidence as an appellate court, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the ....
The statutory presumptions under Sections 138, 118, and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are critical in dishonour cases, determining the burden of proof.
A revisional court shall not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they suffer from perversity or illegality; furthermore, a notice returned as 'unclaimed' to the correct address is presu....
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
