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

2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 28288

MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.S.DHAKSHINAMOORTHY – Appellant
Versus
H.DAMODAR – Respondent
CRL A 682 2021



Crl.A.No.682 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 08.03.2023

PRONOUNCED ON: 14.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.A.No.682 of 2021

K.S.Dhakshinamoorthy ...

Appellant

Vs.

1.H.Damodar

2.State Represented by

The Public Prosecutor,

Combatore – 18.

... Respondents

PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of

Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment passed by the IV

Additional District & Sessions Judge at Coimbatore in Criminal Appeal

No.163 of 2020 dated 04.10.2021 in reversing the well considered

judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2, Magisterial

Level at Coimbatore in C.C.No.93 of 2018 dated 06.08.2020.

For Appellant

...

Mr.V.Raghavachari,

Senior counsel

For Respondent No.1

...

Mr.S.Sathish

for Mr.A.G.Sampath Kumar

For Respondent No.2

...

Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

Additional Public Prosecutor

Page 1 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.682 of 2021

JUDGMENT

Challenging the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2021 passed in

Criminal Appeal No.163 of 2020 by the IV Additional District & Sessions

Judge at Coimbatore reversing the judgment dated 06.08.2020 passed in

C.C.No.93 of 2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2,

Magisterial Level at Coimbatore.

2.The case of the complainant is that the complainant is the father-

in-law of one deceased Chandrasekar. His wife Chandra is the daughter of

the complainant. After his death, his wife Chandra and her daughter

Ishwarya are the legal heirs of the deceased Chandrasekar. The accused has

to pay a huge sum of money to the deceased Chandrasekar. After his death,

this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant and his daughter

Chandra. When they contacted the accused, the accused admitting his

liability issued a cheque bearing No.795380 dated 17.08.2017 drawn on

Andhara Bank, P.N.Pudur Branch, Coimbatore for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/-.

On 24.08.2017, the cheque was presented for collection and the same was

returned as insufficient funds. Again at the request of the accused, the

Page 2 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.682 of 2021

complainant presented the cheque on 27.09.2017 and the same was

returned again on 28.09.2017 as insufficient funds. After issuing legal

notice, the complainant filed a complaint in C.C.No.93 of 2018 before the

Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.2 @ Magisterial Level,

Coimbatore, for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

3.Before the trial Court, the complainant examined himself as PW1

and filed six documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. On the side of the accused, no

oral evidence has been examined and filed one document as Ex.D1.

4.The trial Court, after trial on considering the evidence of the

parties, found guilty and convicted the accused for the offence under

Section 138 of N.I.Act and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for

a period of six months and also directed to pay a compensation of

Rs.25,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of

cheque to the complainant within one month from the date of judgment, in

default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

Page 3 of 14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.682 of 2021

Aggrieved against the same, the accused prepared an appeal in C.A.No.163

of 2020 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.

The learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, after considering

the records and the evidence adduced by the parties, acquitted the accused

and set aside the order passed by the trial Court in C.C.No.93 of 2018.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the

Judgment of the appellate judge is contrary to the facts and law. The

signature in the cheque is not disputed by the accused. Section 139 of

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top