Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SREEDHARAN – Appellant
Versus
RUBEENA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case establish the framework for liability. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented reflect opposing views on liability and evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court observes insufficient evidence to prove liability and cheque execution. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal principles surrounding presumptions under the ni act are articulated. (Para 12) |
| 5. conclusion drawn based on prior findings; appeal dismissed. (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
Appellant was the complainant in S.T.No.462/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Pattambi. The proceedings arose under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for brevity, the Act]. Parties are referred to as they were in the trial court, with the appellant being referred to as the complainant and the first respondent as the accused.
2. By the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2015, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused after concluding that there was no evidence to show the execution of cheque by the accused.
3. According to the complainant, he had business transactions with Sri.Nisar at Bahrain, who was the brother-in-law of the accused. Pursuant to a liability of Rs.60,00,000/- due from S
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
