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

2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 16526

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
M/S.PEEJAY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
SMT.A.R.USHA 2) P.J.VARGHESE MANAGING PARTNER

Judgement Key Points

What is the effect of partial discharge on liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? What is the standard of proof required to uphold a conviction for cheque dishonour when partial payment is claimed? What are the appellate court’s orders regarding compensation and sentences in Criminal Revision Petition No.623/2005 and related matters?

What is the effect of partial discharge on liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?

What is the standard of proof required to uphold a conviction for cheque dishonour when partial payment is claimed?

What are the appellate court’s orders regarding compensation and sentences in Criminal Revision Petition No.623/2005 and related matters?


COMMON ORDER

These revisions are preferred assailing the judgment in Criminal Appeal No.442/2004 on the file of the Sessions Judge, (Ad hoc-I), Ernakulam. The revision petitioner in Criminal Revision Petition.No.623/2005 is the accused in C.C.No.2205/2001 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kochi. Petitioner in the other revision petition is the complainant (hereinafter, parties are referred to as the 'complainant' and 'accused'). The complainant prosecuted the accused before the Trial Court alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with a plea that the accused owed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant and in discharge of the same, Ext.P1 cheque dated 20/6/2000, drawn on Centurion Bank Limited was issued and that when presented for collection, Ext.P1 was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Despite the acknowledgment of notice demanding discharge, the liability was not discharged.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, they were sent for trial. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P7 were marked. On the side of the accused, DW1 and 2 were examined and D1 to D3 were marked. On appraisal of the evidence, the learned M

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