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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 2099

G.RAJASURIA
P. Raju – Appellant
Versus
E. M. Sadasivam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:----. For the Respondent:S. Meenakumari, Advocate.

Judgment :-

Animadverting upon the order dated 012. 2006 passed in Crl.M.P.No.4894 of 2006 in C.C.No.795 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, this criminal revision petition is focussed.

2. An epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision would run thus:

(i) The respondent herein filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode, as against the accused, who entered appearance and contested the matter. During the pendency of the said C.C.No.795 of 2004, Crl.M.P.No.4894 of 2006 was filed under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for sending the purported signature of the accused in the impugned cheque concerned to the expert for getting his opinion, relating to the genuineness of the signature found therein; whereupon the complainant resisted that Crl.M.P. The learned Magistrate passed orders dismissing the said petition.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, this revision has been filed by the accused setting out various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus





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