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.
ST - SUMMARY TRIAL
CNR: KLKT150004162023
Filing Number
113/2023
Filing Date
16-11-2023
Registration No
100113/2023
Registration Date
16-11-2023
Court
Munsiff Court, Ettumanoor
Judge
2-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, ETTUMANOOR
Decision Date
28th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ACQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Devon Foods Ltd
Adv. ROY GEORGE
Respondent(s)
Suneesh Sukumaran Advocate - E.M SURESH
Hearing History
Judge: 2-JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, ETTUMANOOR
Disposed
Order/Judgement
Verify And Report
For Further Hearing
For Further Hearing
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 28-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-04-2026 | Order/Judgement |
| 22-04-2026 | Verify And Report |
| 16-04-2026 | For Further Hearing |
| 13-04-2026 | For Further Hearing |
Final Orders / Judgements
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts