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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 1223

M.THANIKACHALAM
P. S. A. Thamotharan – Appellant
Versus
Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. H. Rajasekaran, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V. Karthikeyan, Advocate for Mr. R. Sankaranarayanan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. By consent of both sides, the revision itself is taken for hearing.

2. The petitioner is facing trial in C. C. No. 151/2000 before the trial Court for the alleged offence said to have been committed by him u/S 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, (in short, N. I. Act). It seems the accused/petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 3,95,000. When the cheque was tendered by the respondent for collection through his Bank where he is having account, the cheque bounced on the ground ‘insufficient funds’. Thereafter, notice has been issued which was acknowledged but not replied. Though time is given, within the time stipulated, amount also has not been paid. In the above said circumstances, the holder of the cheque namely the respondent herein, preferred a complaint before the concerned Magistrate, complaining of the offence u/S. 138, N. I. Act. After appearance of parties the Trial Court also completed the prosecution side examination of witnesses, thereafter questioning the accused u/S. 313, Cr. P. C. As represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, two witnesses have also been examined on the defence side. At this stage, the accused had filed petition before the trial



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