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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3172

M.VENUGOPAL
Samiyappan – Appellant
Versus
S. Sarmila Banu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Shivakumar
For the Respondent: Mr. N.A. Nissar Ahmed

JUDGMENT :

The Appellant/Complainant has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment dated 16.07.2009 in STC No.1633 of 2008 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mayiladuthurai.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Mayiladuthurai while passing the impugned Judgment in STC No.1633 of 2008 (filed by the Appellant/Complainant) at Paragraph No.17 had interalia observed the following:

...17....... It is well established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, she is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove her case beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidences adduced by the parties before this court lead to one conclusion that the accused has been able to discharge her initial burden. The burden thereafter shifted to the complainant to prove his case. But, he failed to do so. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

and resultantly found the Respondent/Accused not guilty under Section 138 r/w 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and acquitted her.

3. Being dissatisfied with the Judgment dated 16.07.2009 in STC No. 1633 of 2009 passed by the Learned Judicial Magis













































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