Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 216 views

    Appeal Criminal

    Uploaded by

    26 Dinesh Kumar P
    1. The appellant filed this criminal appeal against a lower court judgement convicting him of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 100,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. The appellant claims the lower court did not properly consider the evidence and facts of the case. Specifically, that the lower court did not verify the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the cheque and that the sentence imposed was excessive. 4. The appellant requests the higher court to allow the appeal by setting aside the lower court judgement and acquitting the appellant of all charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Appeal Criminal

    Uploaded by

    26 Dinesh Kumar P
    216 views2 pages
    1. The appellant filed this criminal appeal against a lower court judgement convicting him of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 100,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. The appellant claims the lower court did not properly consider the evidence and facts of the case. Specifically, that the lower court did not verify the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the cheque and that the sentence imposed was excessive. 4. The appellant requests the higher court to allow the appeal by setting aside the lower court judgement and acquitting the appellant of all charges.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    appeal criminal

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The appellant filed this criminal appeal against a lower court judgement convicting him of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 100,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. The appellant claims the lower court did not properly consider the evidence and facts of the case. Specifically, that the lower court did not verify the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the cheque and that the sentence imposed was excessive. 4. The appellant requests the higher court to allow the appeal by setting aside the lower court judgement and acquitting the appellant of all charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    216 views2 pages

    Appeal Criminal

    Uploaded by

    26 Dinesh Kumar P
    1. The appellant filed this criminal appeal against a lower court judgement convicting him of an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs. 100,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. The appellant claims the lower court did not properly consider the evidence and facts of the case. Specifically, that the lower court did not verify the authenticity of the appellant's signature on the cheque and that the sentence imposed was excessive. 4. The appellant requests the higher court to allow the appeal by setting aside the lower court judgement and acquitting the appellant of all charges.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BEFOR THE HONOURABLE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT

    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

    Cri A No….2021

    (Appeal filed against the judgement dated 30-06-06 in c.c No 64/04 on the file of Judicial First Class
    Magistrate – I Attingal)

    Appellant/Accused

    Peethambaran, S/o Ganagadharan,


    Elamba Village, Chirayinkeezhu

    Respondent/State/Complainant

    1. State of Kerala,
    Represented by the public Prosecutor,
    Thiruvananthapuram

    2. Muraleedharan Nair, S/o Narayanan Nair,


    Devaragham, Elamba Village

    MEMORANDUM OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED BY


    MS SANTOSH KUMAR AND SANDHYA SANTOSH ADVOCATES VANCHIYOOR,
    THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED UNDER SECTION
    374(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    All notices and process plaintiff

    All notices and process responent

    STATEMENT OF FACTS

    1. The appellant is the accused in CC 64/03 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate Court
    –I , Attingal for the offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The
    appellant/Accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a sum
    of Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

    2. The prosecution case is that the appellant/accused borrowed an amount of Rs 1,00,000/-


    from the 2nd respondent/complainant on 10-03-2003 and on demand appellant/accused issued a
    cheque bearing no 0325452 dated 26-09-2003 for 1,00,000/- drawn at SBI Attingal branch. The 2 nd
    respondent/complainant presented the cheque in Federal bank, Attingal Branch for collection of the
    amount and the cheque was returned for the insufficiency of funds in the account of the
    appellant/accused. The 2nd respondent/complainant sent a registered notice to the
    accused/appellant though his counsel on 30-102003 and even after the receipt of the notice, the
    accused /appellant did not turn up to repay the amount covered by the cheque. The
    appellant/accused committed the offence under section 138 of the NI Act.
    3. The 2nd respondent/complainant were examined as PW1 from the side of the prosecution
    and seven documents were marked.

    GROUNDS

    A. It is submitted that the impugned order of the lower court is not sustainable.
    B. The learned magistrate did not appreciate the available evidence in the proper perspective

    C. it is submitted that the Court below did not apply its mind judiciously to the fact and
    circumstances involved in the above case

    D. The Court below failed to consider the legal position that the presumption of debt cannot be
    held when the execution of the cheque is in dispute.

    E. The lower Court ought to have directed the complainant to prove the genuinity of the
    signature of the drawer in Ext P1 cheque by expert evidence.

    F. It is submitted that the sentence imposed by the lower Court in its judgement is elf
    contradictory and ambiguous and is not executable.

    G. The sentence imposed by the lower court is irrational and highly excessive.

    For these and other reasons to be urged at the time of hearing this Honourable court may be
    pleased to allow the Criminal appeal by setting aside the impugned judgement dated 30-06-2006 on
    the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I Attingal against the appellant/accused and acquit the
    appellant/accused.

    Dated this the 18th day of July 2006

    Sd/- Sd/-
    MS Santosh Kumar Appellant/Accused

    You might also like