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

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1622

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A.K.BASHEER, J
YENUGOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


ORDER

Petitioner who has been charge sheeted by Pallickathodu Police for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC has preferred this revision petition impugning the order passed by the court below rejecting his prayer for discharge under Section

239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the court below ought to have noticed that no offence under Section 420 IPC had been made out from the materials available before the court. According to the petitioner, the defacto complainant had agreed to purchase a stage carriage bearing Reg.No.KL-7/F-4006 on the strength of a written agreement. The vehicle belonged to one K.Vasu from whom petitioner's brother in law Thankappan had purchased the same. Sri.Thankappan had handed over the vehicle to the petitioner and authorised him to sell it to the defacto complainant. Accordingly, the agreement mentioned above was executed. The defacto complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.70,000/- on two occasions agreeing to pay the balance within 1½ months. But later the defacto complainant returned the vehicle saying that he may not be in a position to fulfill his obligation. But dispute arose when the defacto

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