SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 68723

GOPINATHAKURUP – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates:
['R T PRADEEP', '', 'SMT M BINDUDAS', 'SRI S BALACHANDRAN KULASEKHARAM', 'SRI V R GOPU']

The petitioner is the complainant in a

prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act. The counsel engaged by him to file

the complaint had relinquished the matter whereupon

he engaged another counsel who passed away at the

time of hearing. The present counsel is engaged only

at the time of hearing. The petitioner could not

produce the acknowledgment card of the receipt of

lawyer notice by the accused, though he produced

lawyer notice as well as the receipt of sending lawyer

notice through registered post. The defence of the

accused is that he has not received the lawyer notice

and the address shown as that of the accused is not

the correct address. The petitioner filed application

seeking to re-open the evidence under Section 311 of

the Cr.P.C.to produce a lawyer notice sent on behalf of

the wife of the accused showing the address of the wife

3

of the accused as that of the address of the accused

shown in the complaint as well as in the lawyer notice

in the impugned case. The court below rejected the

application by Annexure-V order on the short reason

that no reason is shown by the petitioner as to what

prevented him from producing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top