Devon Foods Ltd vs Suneesh Sukumaran Advocate - E.M SURESH — 100113/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 190,200. Disposed: Contested--ACQUITTED on 28th April 2026.

Case disposed

ST - SUMMARY TRIAL

CNR: KLKT150004162023

Filing Number

113/2023

Filing Date

16-Nov-2023

Registration No

100113/2023

Registration Date

16-Nov-2023

Court

Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor

Judge

2-Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

Decision Date

28-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ACQUITTED

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 190,200
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Devon Foods Ltd

    Adv. ROY GEORGE

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Suneesh Sukumaran Advocate - E.M SURESH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 28-Apr-2026

    JudgementView PDF

    Case Summary: Devon Foods Ltd v. Suneesh Sukumaran (S.T No. 113/2023) Decision: The court acquitted Suneesh Sukumaran of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the complainant failed to prove essential elements of the offense. Key Reasoning: The magistrate found critical evidentiary gaps: (1) no documentary proof that the accused was the company's distributor; (2) delivery documents (Ext.P8) contained blank critical fields and were unverified by the authorized signatory; (3) the statutory 30-day notice requirement was violated—the lawyer's notice was issued 51 days after bank dishonour memo, exceeding the mandatory period under Section 138(b). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  4. 25-Apr-2026

    Order/Judgement

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  5. 22-Apr-2026

    Verify And Report

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  6. 16-Apr-2026

    For Further Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  7. 13-Apr-2026

    For Further Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  8. 27-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  9. 16-Mar-2026

    For Hearing

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  10. 21-Feb-2026

    Further Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  11. 07-Feb-2026

    Further Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  12. 29-Jan-2026

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  13. 19-Jan-2026

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  14. 31-Dec-2025

    For Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  15. 17-Dec-2025

    For Appearance of Accused

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  16. 08-Dec-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  17. 03-Dec-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  18. 22-Nov-2025

    Examination of the Accused U/S 313 Cr.PC

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  19. 31-Oct-2025

    With Connected Case

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  20. 14-Oct-2025

    With Connected Case

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  21. 20-Sep-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  22. 23-Aug-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  23. 05-Jul-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  24. 19-Jun-2025

    Defence Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  25. 29-May-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  26. 28-May-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  27. 15-May-2025

    Further Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  28. 08-May-2025

    Further Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  29. 06-May-2025

    Further Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  30. 28-Apr-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  31. 16-Apr-2025

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  32. 15-Mar-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  33. 20-Feb-2025

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  34. 24-Jan-2025

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  35. 23-Dec-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  36. 07-Dec-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  37. 19-Oct-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  38. 10-Sep-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  39. 12-Aug-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  40. 11-Jul-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  41. 22-Jun-2024

    For Evidence

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  42. 17-May-2024

    Call On

  43. 22-Apr-2024

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  44. 15-Apr-2024

    Issue NBW

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  45. 14-Mar-2024

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  46. 17-Feb-2024

    Call On

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  47. 29-Dec-2023

    Notice to Parties

    Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Ettumanoor

  48. 16-Nov-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  49. 16-Nov-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 100113/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Devon Foods Ltd v. Suneesh Sukumaran (S.T No. 113/2023) Decision: The court acquitted Suneesh Sukumaran of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the complainant failed to prove essential elements of the offense. Key Reasoning: The magistrate found critical evidentiary gaps: (1) no documentary proof that the accused was the company's distributor; (2) delivery documents (Ext.P8) contained blank critical fields and were unverified by the authorized signatory; (3) the statutory 30-day notice requirement was violated—the lawyer's notice was issued 51 days after bank dishonour memo, exceeding the mandatory period under Section 138(b). This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case