Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
K.B KANNAN – Appellant
Versus
V.M PHILIP – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. cheque dishonour under sec.138 ni act due to insufficient funds. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. unrebutted sec.139 presumption supports conviction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. limited revisional jurisdiction under cr.p.c sections 397-401. (Para 8) |
| 4. petition dismissed with time to pay fine. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the judgment dated 01.12.2025 in Crl.Appeal No.370 of 2024 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Court-VII, Ernakulam, confirming the conviction and the sentence rendered by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, in the judgment dated 10.07.2024 in C.C.No.11 of 2023.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The revision petitioner is the accused. He has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’) and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3,53,408/-.
4. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint before the Trial Court alleging that the revision petitioner/accused executed a cheque for Rs.3,00,000-. The complainant presented the cheque for encashment. It was dishonoured and returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient”. Despite receipt of the statutory notice, the revi
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
