Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI
M.G. Baskaran, S/o. M.M. Govindarajulu – Appellant
Versus
V. Gunasekaran, S/o. Late Venugopal Mudaliyar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and trial background (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. contentions from both sides analyzed (Para 8 , 11 , 16) |
| 3. appellate court's considerations concerning fair trial (Para 9 , 15 , 39) |
| 4. arguments related to the accused's rights and trial conduct (Para 10 , 12 , 14 , 18) |
| 5. conclusion on reaffirmation of judgment and sentencing (Para 36 , 42 , 44) |
ORDER :
The petitioner has filed these Criminal Revision petitions, prays to set aside the order in Crl.A.Nos.605 to 607 of 2023 & 610 to 623 of 2023, dated 09.10.2025 before the leaned I Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai against the sentence imposed in C.C. Nos. 9164, 9162, 9160, 5822, 9166, 5819, 5818, 5821, 9165, 9163, 9161, 5820, 9159, 5817, 5824, 9158 & 5823 of 2018, respectively, dated 13.09.2023 by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.I, Egmore aliles Allikulam, Chennai.
3.Thereafter, the matters were posted for evidence on 05.07.2019. The cases were periodically adjourned and ultimately listed on 25.07.2022. Final notice was issued and the cases were posted on 12.08.2022. Subsequently, the matters were adjourned to 02.09.2022 and finally to 31.10.2022. On th
The court affirmed that a retrial under the Negotiable Instruments Act is only justified in exceptional cases; the accused's failure to present a defense allows presumptions of debt and liability to ....
The court emphasized the importance of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Sec. 139 of the N.I. Act in establishing the guilt of the accus....
The presumption favoring the complainant under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act remains unless disproven by the accused.
The dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act constitutes a criminal offence, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a valid defence against the allega....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
The courts held that the presumption of cheque validity under Section 138 persists until contradicted by credible evidence, which was not achieved by the accused.
Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a dishonoured cheque establishes a presumption of liability that the accused must rebut; mere denial is insufficient in the absence of evidence.
The failure of the complainant to tender for further cross-examination led to the discarding of his evidence, which invalidated the judgments of conviction.
Point of law : Though as per section 16-A of the PFA all offence under section 16(1) are to be tried by the Magistrate of First Class so empowered summarily, departure from this procedure can be made....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
