Sudha Vs. G.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Sudha vs G.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 04, 2013

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1013513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1013513
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice K.Harilal
Decided On: Feb 04, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sudha

Respondent

G.Gopalakrishna Pillai

Excerpt

.....pillai pallathu house, elippakulam p.o., pallickal alappuzha district.2. state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor high court of kerala, ernakulam. r2 by public prosecutor smt. seena ramakrishnan this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 04-02-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: k. harilal j.===================== crl.r.p.no. 70 of 201.===================== dated this the 4th day of february 2013 order the revision petitioner herein is the accused in c.c.no.227/2008 on the files of the judicial first class magistrate court, kayamkulam as well as appellant in crl.appeal no. 481/2011 of the additional sessions court-i, mavelikkara. the first respondent herein filed a complaint against the revision petitioner alleging offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the allegation against the revision petitioner is that the revision petitioner borrowed rs.1,50,000/- from the first respondent on 19/12/2007and issued a cheque dated 2/1/2008 to the first respondent. when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground that the "funds insufficient". the first respondent sent statutory notice to the revision petitioner, but he has neither responded to the statutory notice nor paid the cheque amount demanded by the notice. hence, he was chargesheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under crrp 70

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013 15TH MAGHA 193 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 70 of 2013 ----------------------------- AGAINST THEJ UDGMENT IN CRA.481/2011 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT- I,MAVELIKKARA DATED 24 09-2012 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC.227/2008 of J.M.F.C., KAYAMKULAM DATED 17 09- 2011 REVISION PETITIONER//ACCUSED: SUDHA, AGED 4 YEARS, W/O. SIVARAMAN SUDHA BHAVAN KAPPIL EAST, KRISHNAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.S.L.SYLAJA COMPLAINANTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

1. G.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 5 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI PALLATHU HOUSE, ELIPPAKULAM P.O., PALLICKAL ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HARILAL J.

===================== CRL.R.P.NO. 70 OF 201.===================== Dated this the 4th day of February 2013 ORDER The Revision Petitioner herein is the accused in C.C.No.227/2008 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kayamkulam as well as appellant in Crl.Appeal No. 481/2011 of the Additional Sessions Court-I, Mavelikkara. The first respondent herein filed a complaint against the Revision Petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The allegation against the Revision Petitioner is that the Revision Petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from the first respondent on 19/12/2007and issued a cheque dated 2/1/2008 to the first respondent. When the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured on the ground that the "funds insufficient". The first respondent sent statutory notice to the Revision Petitioner, but he has neither responded to the statutory notice nor paid the cheque amount demanded by the notice. Hence, he was chargesheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under CRRP 70

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2013 Same Parties Sudha vs G.Gopalakrishna Pillai Same Subject Education Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice K.Harilal