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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25625

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
ANEES MUHAMMAD SAFEER – Appellant
Versus
JOSE ABRAHAM – Respondent


Advocates:
AJAYA KUMAR, G FATHIMA MAJEED, AJITH MURALI MOHANAN, NIMA JACOB

O R D E R

The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 16.10.2023 in S.T. No.3075 of 2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari, which has been confirmed by the Sessions Court, Alappuzha in the judgment dated 24.06.2024 in Crl.Appeal No.198 of 2023.

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the Court. He was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. The complainant/respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Court alleging that the accused/revision petitioner executed Ext. P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The parties entered into an agreement to settle the matter for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/. In furtherance of the said agreement, the accused issued Ext.P2 cheque for Rs.6,00,000/-. When presented for encashment, the same was also dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Even after the receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not

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