Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
P.A.ASHRAF – Appellant
Versus
K.S.SHANAVAS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of issuance and dishonor of cheque. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the validity of acquittal. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of service and notice. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal principles surrounding notice service. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. burden of proof and rebuttals examined. (Para 12 , 13 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. conclusion on presumption and burden concerning enactments. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. final decision on appeal. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
The appellant was the complainant in S.T.No.207 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, North Paravur. He is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 16.10.2014 in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , 1881 (for short, 'NI Act'). The parties are referred to in this judgement, as they were in the trial court.
2. The complainant alleged that the accused had borrowed an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- from him and issued a cheque dated 04.11.2007 bearing No.000144 drawn on the Union Bank of India, Thottilpalam Branch for the amount borrowed, which, when presented for encashment, returned dishonoured on 11.04.2008, with the memo ‘insufficiency of funds’. Though a statutory notice wa
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
