Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Jobin Sebastian, J
Vijayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Praveen – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual background of the cheque dishonour case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. rival contentions regarding evidence and the burden of proof. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. scope of the high court's revisional power. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of section 139 presumption and failure of rebuttal. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
O R D E R
Dated this is the 2 n d day of June, 2026 Under challenge in this revision petition is the conviction and sentence passed against the revision petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short “N.I. Act”).
2. The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.
No.166/1999 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Kannur.
3. The case of the complainant is that the accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant, and in discharge of the said liability, the accused issued two cheques on the same day towards discharge of the liability, both for Rs.1,50,000/-, one dated 11.01.1999 and the other dated 28.01.1999, in the complainant’s favour. However, upon presentation, the cheque was dishonoured, stating the reason “funds insufficient.” Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory notice da
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
