HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
K.RAVEENDRAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
C.LATHA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. defense against the claim (Para 9 , 10) |
| 2. insufficient evidence from complainant (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. burden of proof on complainant (Para 13) |
| 4. court upholds acquittal (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT
T his appeal is at the instance of the complainant in ST.No. 336 of 2005, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VII, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging acquittal of the accused, in a complaint filed by him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the NI Act’) vide judgment dated 20/7/2007.
2. The case of the complainant is that, the accused borrowed Rs.8 lakh from him, and towards discharge of that debt, she issued Ext.P1 cheque dated 25/8/2002, assuring that it would be honoured on presentation before the bank. But the cheque was dishonoured for the reason ‘insufficient funds’. The complainant sent registered lawyer notice to the accused intimating dishonour of the cheque, and demanding the cheque amount. Inspite of receipt of notice, the accused did not return the amount, and hence the complainant.
3. On taking cognizance and on appearance of the accused before the trial court, particulars of offence was read over and explained to which she pleade
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.