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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3932

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN
D.ANTHONY MUTHU – Appellant
Versus
R.VAITHIYANATHAN – Respondent



##PAGE1##

Crl.R.C. Nos. 2827 & 2828 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

Crl.R.C. Nos. 2827 & 2828 of 2025

&

Crl.M.P. Nos. 24513 & 24517 of 2025

D.Anthony Muthu

S/o. M. Dasan,

Flat No. 52, 2nd Floor,

Plot No. 52, Poonga Salai,

Thendral Nagar,

Srinivasapuram Extension,

Anakaputhur, Chennai – 600 070. ..Petitioner in both the

revisions

Vs.

R. Vaithiyanathan,

S/o, Ramakrishnan,

Plot No. 113, 6th Cross Street,

Royal Garden,

Kattupakkam, Chennai – 600 056. ..Respondent in both

the revisions.

Prayer: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of

BNSS to call for the records and to set aside the impugned orders dated

1\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:04 pm )

##PAGE2##

Crl.R.C. Nos. 2827 & 2828 of 2025

15.09.2025 made in C.M.P. Nos. 02 & 03 of 2025 respectively in C.A. Nos.

150 & 149 of 2024 respectively on the file of learned II Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee and permit the petitioner to give additional

defence evidence to disprove the case of the respondent.

For Petitioner

in both revisions :: Mr.M. Francis Antony

For Respondent

in both revisions :: Mr.R. Darshan

COMMON ORDER

The respective criminal revision petitions challenge the orders

dated 15.09.2025 passed in C.M.P. No. 02 of 2025 in C.A. No. 150 of 2024

and C.M.P. No. 03 of 2025 in C.A. No. 149 of 2024 on the file of learned II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Poonamallee.

2. The petitioner is an accused in a complaint instituted for

the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He was

convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to

pay compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- carrying a default sentence of one week

simple imprisonment in respect of S.T.C. No. 55 of 2022 and to undergo

2\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:04 pm )

##PAGE3##

Crl.R.C. Nos. 2827 & 2828 of 2025

simple imprisonment for one year and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

carrying a default sentence of one week simple imprisonment in respect of

S.T.C. No. 133 of 2022 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court

at Magisterial Level, Poonamallee. Challenging the said conviction and

sentence, the petitioner preferred appeals in C.A. Nos. 150 & 149 of 2024.

3. During the pendency of the appeals, the petitioner filed

applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C.in C.M.P. Nos. 02 of 2025 and 03 of

2025 in C.A. Nos. 150 & 149 of 2024 respectively seeking to adduce

additional evidence by producing 9 documents.

4. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said

applications stating that the petitioner had not appeared before the Court

from 11.01.2023 to 27.06.2024 and the case was adjourned 44 times; that the

petitioner had sought for the very same documents even in his applications

filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. when the case was pending trial before the

learned Magistrate; that the said petitions were dismissed; that the petitioner

had not challenged the same and that the applications under Section 391

Cr.P.C. have been filed only to delay the proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

3\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/01/2026 07:30:04 pm )

##PAGE4##

Crl.R.C. Nos. 2827 & 2828 of 2025

though the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C.

before the Trial Court came to be dismissed and the petitioner had not

challenged the said orders, that by itself, cannot be a ground to reject his

applications under Section 391 Cr.P.C. He would further submit that since

the petitioner is seeking vital documents to prove his innocence and he has a

duty to rebut the statutory presumption, the Appellate Court ought to have

permitted him to adduce additional evidence. Learned counsel for the

petitioner would also submit that though the petitioner sought for 9

documents, he would confine his prayer to 2 documents, namely, (i) the

Loan Repayment Schedule issued by the respondent dated 30.01.2017 and

(ii) the Statement of Accoun

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 Back to top