M.VENUGOPAL
N. Elangovan – Appellant
Versus
C. Ganesan – Respondent
1. The Appellant / Complainant has focussed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court, as against the Judgment of acquittal, dated 02.08.2006 in C.C.No.1273 of 2003, passed by the Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. The Learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.1273 of 2003, dated 02.08.2006 had interalia observed 'that the Appellant / Complainant in his written complaint, argument, evidence and in notice had stated that the Respondent / Accused issued a Cheque in his favour based on private money transaction, since it transpires that Ex.P1 Cheque was issued in favour of Partnership Firm of 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' and also that the Appellant / Complainant in para 3 of his complaint had admitted that the Respondent / Accused was the partner in the 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' Partnership Firm and in that case, other partners were not shown as Accused and also that in the aforesaid case, the Appellant / Complainant had not arrayed 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' as first Accused and although presently 'Sri Karpaga Vinayagar Jewellery' was not in existence, in regard to this
Sheoratan Agarwal and Anr v State of Madhya Pradesh; AIR 1984 SC 1824
R.Rajagopal v S.S.Venkat; (2001) 10 SCC 91
T.Stanes & Co.Ltd v A.Jaffarullah; (2001) 10 SCC 78
Aneeta Hada v Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited; (2012) 5 SCC 661
Structee Mech India v Bharat Kumar Pahlajrai and Others; AIR 1982 Mad 51
M M Abbas Brothers and Others v Chetandas Fatehchans and Another; AIR 1979 Mad 272
Sunderdas v Liberty Pictures; AIR 1956 Bom 618
Girdharman Kapur Chand v Dev Raj Madan Gopal (AIR 1963 SC 1587)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.