Devarajan vs Shibu Shanmugam — 401847/2015
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act \ Section 138. Disposed: Contested--AQUITTED on 19th March 2026.
CC - CALENDAR CASE
CNR: KLTV250065662015
Filing Number
401847/2015
Filing Date
30-10-2015
Registration No
401847/2015
Registration Date
30-10-2015
Court
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court 1, Neyyattinkara
Judge
1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Neyyttinkara
Decision Date
19th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AQUITTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Devarajan
Respondent(s)
Shibu Shanmugam
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial First Class Magistrate-I Neyyttinkara
Disposed
For hearing on IA
Order/ Judgement
For further hearing
Adjourned
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 19-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 16-03-2026 | For hearing on IA |
| 12-03-2026 | Order/ Judgement |
| 27-02-2026 | For further hearing |
| 23-02-2026 | Adjourned |
Interim Orders
Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Neyyattinkara acquitted Shibu Shanmugham of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that no legally enforceable debt existed between the parties. The court determined the complainant's claimed transaction date of February 30, 2013 was impossible, and questioned his financial capacity, thereby rebutting the statutory presumptions available to him. Although the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and statutory procedures were followed, the absence of a valid underlying debt—a critical ingredient of Section 138—made conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Judicial First Class Magistrate at Neyyattinkara acquitted Shibu Shanmugham of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that no legally enforceable debt existed between the parties. The court determined the complainant's claimed transaction date of February 30, 2013 was impossible, and questioned his financial capacity, thereby rebutting the statutory presumptions available to him. Although the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and statutory procedures were followed, the absence of a valid underlying debt—a critical ingredient of Section 138—made conviction impossible. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts