SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

S.N.VARIAVA, K.T.THOMAS
K. N. Beena – Appellant
Versus
Muniyappan & Anr. – Respondent


Judgment

S.N. Variava, J.—Leave granted.

2. Heard parties.

3. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:

The Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque dated 6th April, 1993 in a sum of Rs. 63720/-, issued by the 1st First Respondent in favour of the Appellant on Central Bank, had been dishonored with the remarks “Insufficient Funds”. The Appellant had issued a legal notice dated 28th April, 1993. Receipt of the said notice is admitted. A reply dated 21st May, 1993 was sent by the 1st Respondent. However no payment was made.

4. After trial the Judicial Magistrate-II, Kumbakonam, convicted the 1st First Respondent under Section 138 and directed payment of a fine of Rs. 65000/=. In default the 1st Respondent was to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. The 1st Respondent challenged the convic­tion and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1995. The same came to be dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 28th August, 1995.

5. The 1st Respondent then preferred Criminal Revision No. 883 of 1995 before the High Court of Madras. A learned Single Judge, by the im­pugned Order dated 20th July, 2000, set aside the conviction and acquitted the






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top