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

2019 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 81566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMEDALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 4658/2019



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 13TH ASHADHA, 1941 Crl.MC.No.4658 of 2019 ST 279/2017 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODUNGALLUR PETITIONER/ACCUSED :

MOHAMMEDALI, S/O.MOOSA, AGED 55, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, KOORIKUZHI DESOM, KAIPAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.SHAJU PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.K.S.RAJESH RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

OTHER PRESENT:

SRI.C.K.PRASAD -P.P THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

04.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner herein is the accused in five cases before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur; all involving the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner wants to surrender before the trial court , but his concern is that the trial court would not accept two sureties for the five cases, and so, he seeks a direction. If any Judicial Magistrate in Keraka has been maintaining such a stand that separate sureties will have to be produced in different cases, it is against the settled law, that what matters is not the number of the sureties. but their solvency, to the total extent of the bond ordered by the Court. If the two sureties of the petitioner are solvent enough to execute bond in five cases, they can very well be accepted as sureties in the five case, as already settled by this Court.

With the above observation, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

Sd/-

P.UBAID rkj JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.4266/2013 DATED 20.08.2013.

ANNEXURE B : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.3800/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED

08.10.2013.

ANNEXURE C : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.2959/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED

20.02.2014.

ANNEXURE D : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.2960/2015 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED

20.02.2014.

ANNEXURE E : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN S.T.NO.279/2017 ON THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED

20.04.2017.

ANNEXURE F : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.5595/2014 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED

07.10.2014.

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 Back to top