Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Kauser Edappagath, J
K. BALAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
SREEDHARAN NAIR – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for appeal and initial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's absence at hearings impacting proceedings. (Para 4) |
| 3. court's reflection on evidence and obligations. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the accused and the respondent No.1 is the complainant in C.C.No.487/2000 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad (for short, 'the trial court'). The offence alleged was punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the NI Act').
2. The allegation is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.75,000/- from respondent No.1 and towards the discharge of the said debt, Ext.P1 series cheques were issued, which on presentation were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. Even though statutory notice under Section 138 (b) of the N.I. Act was issued, there was no compliance.
Hence, the prosecution was launched.
3. Before the trial court, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the complainant/respondent No.1. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found that the petitioner had committed the offence punishable under Sectio
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
