Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J
Rajesh K. – Appellant
Versus
Asokan P.K. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the background and procedural history of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. legal necessity of specifying the cheque amount in a section 138 demand notice. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. final confirmation of the acquittal due to invalid demand notice. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2026 Judgment in S.T.No.1862/2010 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra, dated 30.11.2012 is under challenge in this appeal filed at the instance of the complainant in the above case. The 1st respondent herein is the accused and the 2nd respondent is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice served upon the 1st respondent/accused, he did not turn up.
3. On dishonour of a cheque for ₹95,000/- (Rupees ninety-five thousand only), the complainant lodged complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perambra alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’
hereinafter), by the accused.
4. The trial court secured presence of the accused for trial. During t
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
