VILASINI vs SOBHA. V — 500438/2024
Case under Negotiable Instruments (amendment) Act Section 138. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 29th April 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLAL190013092024
Filing Number
501309/2024
Filing Date
01-07-2024
Registration No
500438/2024
Registration Date
01-07-2024
Court
JFMC II, Mavelikkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VILASINI
Adv. VISHNU NARAYANA. K. S, RATHEESH
Respondent(s)
SOBHA. V
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara
Disposed
Order/Judgement
No sitting notified
Order/Judgement
For further hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 22-04-2026 | No sitting notified |
| 18-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 07-04-2026 | For further hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara acquitted the accused Sobha of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding her not guilty. The court determined that while the cheque execution was proved, the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions by establishing a probable defence that the cheque was originally issued to the complainant's son (a financier) as security for a ₹40,000 loan in 2019, and was subsequently misused by the complainant. The court noted discrepancies in the legal notice documents and the complainant's failure to prove sufficient financial capacity to lend the amount, leading to the acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mavelikara acquitted the accused Sobha of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding her not guilty. The court determined that while the cheque execution was proved, the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions by establishing a probable defence that the cheque was originally issued to the complainant's son (a financier) as security for a ₹40,000 loan in 2019, and was subsequently misused by the complainant. The court noted discrepancies in the legal notice documents and the complainant's failure to prove sufficient financial capacity to lend the amount, leading to the acquittal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts