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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 2078

R.MALA
R. Thangavel – Appellant
Versus
S. P. Murugesan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C.D. Johnson, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mrs.N. Amudhavalli, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This criminal revision arises out of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Erode, in C.A.No.347 of 2006, dated 18.10.2007, confirming the conviction and sentence of simple imprisonment for two years and set aside the compensation award passed in C.C.No.334 of 2003, dated 27.11.2006, by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode, for the offences under Sections 138 read with 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The skeleton of the complaint is as follows:

(i)The revision petitioner/accused borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on 30.10.2002 and 31.10.2002, totaling Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent/complainant. He issued two cheques bearing Nos.328648 and 328649 dated 04.01.2003 in respect of the said amounts and the same were presented in the Bank on 15.03.2003, but it was returned as 'insufficient funds'. Immediately, the respondent/complainant issued a statutory notice on 08.04.2003 and the revision petitioner/accused received the same on 12.04.2003 and he gave a reply with false allegations. Since he has not repaid the cheque amounts, the respondent/complainant has come forward with the com



























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