Shanavas Khan vs Jiyas Advocate - SARAN SIVAN — 5000703/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act \ Section 138. Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED on 30th March 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLAL190010682019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
501068/2019
Filing Date
15-07-2019
Registration No
5000703/2019
Registration Date
15-07-2019
Court
JFMC II, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CONVICTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shanavas Khan
Adv. S. Sudheer khan
Respondent(s)
Jiyas Advocate - SARAN SIVAN
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 26-03-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 23-03-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 17-03-2026 | Order/Judgement | |
| 11-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The court convicted accused Jiyas Thangal Kunju under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, finding him guilty of issuing a cheque for ₹1,00,000 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court rejected the accused's defense claiming the cheque was issued for a cattle feed business partnership, finding his testimony lacked credible details and failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a debt. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and ordered to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000, with the fine amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation; default imprisonment is one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court convicted accused Jiyas Thangal Kunju under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, finding him guilty of issuing a cheque for ₹1,00,000 that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court rejected the accused's defense claiming the cheque was issued for a cattle feed business partnership, finding his testimony lacked credible details and failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a debt. The accused was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of court and ordered to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000, with the fine amount to be paid to the complainant as compensation; default imprisonment is one month. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts