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

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25078

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
MATHEW JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
A.M.NOUSHAD – Respondent


Advocates:
D.KISHORE, T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

O R D E R

The challenge in this Crl. Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 04.06.2019 in S.T.No.128 of 2016 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam, which has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Kollam in the judgment dated 29.06.2020 in Crl.Appeal No.95 of 2019.

2. The revision petitioner is the sole accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. He was also directed to pay the complainant a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-.

3. The complainant/respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the accused/revision petitioner executed Ext.P1 cheque for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured unpaid due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. Even after receipt of the statutory notice, the revision petitioner did not pay the amount covered by cheque. 4. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The revision petitioner appeared on summons. He pleaded not guilty to the offence alleged.

5. The complainant gave evidence as PW1 in support of the averments in the

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