Ragesh vs Vincent — 200970/2019
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act \ Section 138. Disposed: Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED on 29th April 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTR180023162019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
200970/2019
Filing Date
09-08-2019
Registration No
200970/2019
Registration Date
09-08-2019
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chavakkad
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Decision Date
29th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--CONVICTED AND FINED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ragesh
Respondent(s)
Vincent
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate
Disposed
Order/ Judgement
Adjourned
Order/ Judgement
FOR HEARING
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 27-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 22-04-2026 | Adjourned | |
| 07-04-2026 | Order/ Judgement | |
| 04-04-2026 | FOR HEARING |
Final Orders / Judgements
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad found Vincent guilty of issuing a dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused issued a ₹2,00,000 cheque dated 07/06/2019 to discharge a debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds on 14/06/2019, and he refused to pay despite statutory notice. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹4,00,000 (twice the cheque amount) as compensation, with six months simple imprisonment as default. The court rejected the accused's defense that the cheque was merely security for jewelry deposits, finding his evidence unconvincing and applying statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Court Decision Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad found Vincent guilty of issuing a dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused issued a ₹2,00,000 cheque dated 07/06/2019 to discharge a debt, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds on 14/06/2019, and he refused to pay despite statutory notice. The court sentenced him to pay a fine of ₹4,00,000 (twice the cheque amount) as compensation, with six months simple imprisonment as default. The court rejected the accused's defense that the cheque was merely security for jewelry deposits, finding his evidence unconvincing and applying statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts