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) 1212

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MOHAMMEDALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


The petitioner herein is the accused in five cases before

the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur; all involving

the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The petitioner wants to surrender before the trial court , but his

concern is that the trial court would not accept two sureties for

the five cases, and so, he seeks a direction. If any Judicial

Magistrate in Keraka has been maintaining such a stand that

separate sureties will have to be produced in different cases, it is

against the settled law, that what matters is not the number of

the sureties. but their solvency, to the total extent of the bond

ordered by the Court. If the two sureties of the petitioner are

solvent enough to execute bond in five cases, they can very well

be accepted as sureties in the five case, as already settled by this

Court.

With the above observation, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

Sd/-

P.UBAID

rkj

JUDGE

3

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S' ANNEXURES :

ANNEXURE A :

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.4266/2013

DATED 20.08.2013.

ANNEXURE B :

TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO.3800/2014 ON

THE FILES OF THE JFCM COURT, KODUNGALLUR DATED

08.10.2013.

ANNEXURE C :

TRUE COPY OF THE CO

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