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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 887

M.VENUGOPAL
R. Thangavel – Appellant
Versus
K. Palanisamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Nandhakumar
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Ponraj

JUDGMENT :

The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the instant Criminal Appeal as against the judgment of the acquittal dated 08.10.2015 in S.T.C.No.380 of 2011 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi.

2. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Pollachi, while passing the impugned judgment of the acquittal in S.T.C.No.380 of 2011 on 08.10.2015 at para-16 ... among other things observed that ... 'on the side of the Respondent/Accused, a presumption in his favour as per Section 139 of NI Act was made and further, the Appellant/Complainant had failed to establish the ingredients of his case and finally came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 138 of NI Act was not established against the Respondent/Accused' and resultantly, acquitted him under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

3. Questioning the correctness, validity and legality of the judgment of the acquittal, dated 08.10.2015 in S.T.C. No. 380 of 2011 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court, by taking a plea that the trial Court had failed to take into consideration that in the instant case, the execution of Ex.P2, Cheque dated 30.10.2010










































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