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

2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 95820

MADRAS HIGH COURT
A.SUBRAMANIAN – Appellant
Versus
P.KANNAMMAL – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The complainant lent Rs.5,00,000 to the accused, and the accused issued a cheque which bounced (!) (!) . - The accused argued the cheque was given as security for a business transaction, not to discharge a debt (!) (!) . - The court found the complainant, though a housewife, had the wherewithal to lend the amount (!) (!) . - The lower courts held the accused guilty under Section 138 for failing to repay the debt (!) (!) . - The statutory presumption under Section 138 applies, and the burden to prove the foundational fact of an enforceable debt lies with the complainant (!) (!) . - The revision petition was dismissed because the evidence did not overturn the finding of an enforceable debt (!) (!) .

What is the core factual dispute regarding the source of funds and enforceability of the debt?

What is the legal presumption applied under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case?

What is the basis for the court's dismissal of the criminal revision petition?


Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 20.04.2023

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

and

Crl.M.P.Nos.3178 & 3179 of 2020

A.Subramanian

.. Petitioner

Vs.

P.Kannammal

..Respondent

The Public Prosecutor

...Formal Party

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case has been filed under sections 397

read with 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of

the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode on 31.10.2019 in

Crl.A.No.97 of 2015 confirming the conviction and sentence passed by

the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track No.II, Erode in S.T.C.No.331

of 2013 dated 21.07.2015.

For Petitioner

:

M/s.M.Lourdu

For Respondent

:

Steps not taken & died

1/14

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

Crl.R.C.No.400 of 2020

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

2.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the concurrent

findings of the Courts below holding that the revision petitioner was

guilty of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for

issuing a cheque for Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent after closing the

account.

3.

Accord

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