THE CENTRAL FINANCIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT vs BINU MANOJ — 300508/2015
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 16th March 2026.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLKT120006912015
Filing Number
305584/2015
Filing Date
16-02-2015
Registration No
300508/2015
Registration Date
16-02-2015
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Pala
Judge
1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1 PALA
Decision Date
16th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE CENTRAL FINANCIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT
Respondent(s)
BINU MANOJ
Hearing History
Judge: 1-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1 PALA
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
Order/Judgement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 10-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 05-03-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 28-02-2026 | Order/Judgement |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.T. 508/2015 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pala acquitted Binu Manoj of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the complainant failed to prove the transaction and cheque execution. While the court found the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and legal notice requirements were met, critical evidentiary gaps—including signature discrepancies, unexplained document alterations, uncertain execution date, and omission of prior GDCS transaction details—created reasonable doubt regarding the alleged debt liability, benefiting the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S.T. 508/2015 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pala acquitted Binu Manoj of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the complainant failed to prove the transaction and cheque execution. While the court found the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and legal notice requirements were met, critical evidentiary gaps—including signature discrepancies, unexplained document alterations, uncertain execution date, and omission of prior GDCS transaction details—created reasonable doubt regarding the alleged debt liability, benefiting the accused. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts