Mary Ann Thomas v. M/S. Uti Bank
Case brief
What is this about?
In a Criminal Revision Petition challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court rejected the plea that the cheque was not executed or materially altered. The court held the finding was based on ample evidence and absent perversity. It confirmed the conviction and sentence while granting the accused four months time to pay the compensation.
What did the court decide?
Conviction and sentence confirmed; petitioner granted four months time to pay compensation of Rs.1,20,157/-.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2012/11TH MAGHA,1933
CRRP.No. 208 of 2012 (A)
[.NO./ IN CRA.547/2008 of ADDITIONAL.DISTRICT. COURT (ADHOC)III, TRIVANDRUM .NO./ IN ST.245/2005 of JUDICIAL FIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-V, TRIVANDRUM (SPL.COURT-MARKLIST CASES)]
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MARY ANN THOMAS, W/O. MANOJ THOMAS, Q/15, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.SRI.IEANS.C.CHAMAKKALA SRI.BINU B.SAMUEL
COMPLAINANT(S):
1. M/S. UTI BANK REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER SUJITH JOSEPH IYPE ROOM NO. 29, ANANTHAPURI, JAGATHI,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is proof of execution of the contested cheque.
Whether the finding of facts regarding cheque execution is perverse and warrants interference.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mary Ann Thomas
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
P. Bhavadasan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court