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

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13235

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
MOHAMMED IQBAL
– Appellant
Versus

PRAKASAN – Respondent


Advocates:
M.B.SHYNI, RAJESHKUMAR.V.R, V.R.ANILKUMAR, PAREETH LUTHUFIN K.B., RAMEES P.K., ERFANA PARAMBADAN

JUDGMENT

This revision is directed against concurrent findings of guilt of the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short, ‘NI Act’) and consequent passing of orders of conviction and sentence by Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Act cases), Kozhikode, (for short ‘the trial court’) in S.T.No.33/2018, and 1st Additional Court of Sessions, Kozhikode, (for short, ‘the appellate court’) in Criminal Appeal No.461/2019. The revision petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the trial court to pay a fine of Rs.92,000/- (Rupees Ninety Two Thousand only) and to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default of payment of the fine amount. The fine amount was also directed to be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 357 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’). When the judgment of the trial court was assailed in appeal, the Appellate Court has confirmed the sentence.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that statutory notice as contemplated by Clause (b) of proviso to section 138 was not served on the revision petitioner. According to him, the contention was taken in

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