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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 749

M.VENUGOPAL
P. Jayamadha – Appellant
Versus
L. Kumar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. P.G. Perumal Pandian.
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Franklin.

ORDER :

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. The Petitioner/Appellant/Complainant has filed the instant Criminal Original Petition seeking 'Grant of Special Leave' to prefer an Appeal as against the 'Judgment of Acquittal' dated 28.09.2016 in C.C.No.246 of 2015 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu.

3. It transpires that the trial Court, in its Judgment at paragraph 11, among other things, had observed that '.. The Complainant (Petitioner/Appellant) either in her Legal Notice or in her Complaint or in her Proof Affidavit had not mentioned as to who made the corrections in Ex.P1 - Cheque' and ultimately, came to the conclusion that in the present case, it was a question mark as to who made the aforesaid corrections in the cheque and opined that the cheque was a void one.

4. Moreover, the trial Court, at paragraph 14 of its Judgment, had proceeded to state that the averment to the effect that as per Sale Agreement, the Complainant gave a cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent/Accused and also paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash for which no documents or evidence were produced/filed and therefore,


























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