Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)
P.T.Joy vs K.V.Sivasankaran on 17 March, 2020 cites

Mrs. Jain Babu vs K.J.Joseph on 4 September, 2008

It was held that, in case the defence does lead any evidence, the nature of its evidence may not be necessarily documentary; in all likelihood the defence would lead other kinds of evidences to rebut the presumption that the issuance of the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or Crl.A.78/11 7 liability. The Supreme Court held that, this was the basic difference between the nature of the complainant's evidence and the evidence of the accused in a case of dishonoured cheque. Court concluded that, it was wrong to equate the defence evidence with the complainant's evidence and to extend the same option to the accused as well. Virtually, Supreme Court overruled the dictum of the Kerala High Court in Jain Babu v. K.J.Joseph and Another (2008(4) KHC 1), wherein, it was held that the accused can tender his evidence by way of affidavit.
Kerala High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 102 - R Basant - Full Document

Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal vs State Of Kerala on 5 December, 2016

In Kalladikkattil Mohammed Jamal's case, the observation of the learned magistrate was that the order permitting the accused to file proof affidavit cannot be recalled, since it was barred under section 362 Cr.P.C, was held to be improper. It was held that, the order permitting the accused to file proof affidavit itself was wrong and it was not a judicial order and it was only proceedings of the trial court which has to be treated as non est and ultra vires and the court below ought to have recalled the earlier order. It would not be hit by section 362 Cr.P.C, it was held.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - A Thomas - Full Document
1   2 Next