Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. Snehalatha, J
C.M.Musthaffa – Appellant
Versus
Thoniyan Abdul Sathar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the necessity of proving a legally enforceable debt in cheque dishonor cases. (Para 1 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. the court's role in addressing errors in lower court verdicts. (Para 10 , 17) |
| 3. presumptions under n.i. act significantly aid the complainant's case. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. final verdict reflects reinstatement of the trial court's decision. (Para 24) |
J U D G M E N T
Complainant filed the revision petition challenging judgment in Crl.A No.99/2015 of the Sessions Court, Thalassery.
2. From the order of acquittal complainant erroneously filed the revision. This Court is satisfied that complainant filed it under an erroneous belief that no appeal lies. Since the matter is pending before this Court from 2019 onwards, this Court treats this Revision Petition as an appeal and deals with the same accordingly as provided under Section 401 (5) Cr.P.C ( Section 442 (5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023) in order to avoid further delay in disposing the matter as sought by both sides.
3. The parties shall be referred to as the complainant and the accused as before the trial court.
4. The complainant filed the complaint alleging that Ext.P1 cheque for an amount of ₹1,50
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
