Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SHAMIM AHMED, J
S.Paritha Banu – Appellant
Versus
M.Prabhu – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delay in filing revision petition condoned. (Para 1 , 4 , 18) |
| 2. accused failed to rebut the presumption of debt. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 16) |
| 3. the presumption under section 139 of ni act supports the complainant's case. (Para 17 , 19 , 20 , 24) |
ORDER
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 04.12.2024, passed in Crl.A.No.44 of 2023, by the Principal District Sessions Court, Karur, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 23.02.2023, passed in CC.No.503 of 2017, by the Judicial Magistrate Court, FTC, Karur and to set aside the same.
2. When this Criminal Revision Case at the numbering stage, along with the application in Crl.MP(MD).No.8510 of 2025, seeking to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the said Criminal Revision Case, came up for consideration on 04.07.2025, before the Coordinate Bench of this Court, notice was ordered to the Respondent/Complainant and the matter was ordered to be listed on 31.07.2025.
3. When the said application in Crl.MP(MD).No.8510 of 2025, seeking to condone the delay of 27 days in filing the Criminal Revision Case came before the Coordinate Bench of this Court on 3
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
