Dismissed

V.Ethirajulu v. M.Jayaprakash

Madras HC8 Sept 2014CRL RC/628/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C. challenging the dismissal of applications for expert examination of cheques. The Court found no error in the lower court's order but directed the lower court to entertain Section 73 Indian Evidence Act proceedings to ascertain if cheques were issued in blank.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed; direction given to resort to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act to further satisfy Court regarding merits.

V.Ethirajulu Vs M.Jayaprakash — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.09.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM Crl.R.C. Nos.628 and 629 of 2014

¶5

V.Ethirajulu .. Petitioner in
both revisions
Vs.
M.Jayaprakash ... Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.628 of 2014
K.Ramu ... Respondent in
Crl.R.C.No.629 of 2014
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.Sec.401
Cr.P.C. against the order, dated 15.05.2014, passed by the
Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1668 and 1667
of 2014 in S.T.C.No.554 of 2012 and C.C.No.209 of 2013
respectively.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
For Respondents : M/s.N.A.Ravindran
C.Prabakaran
COMMON ORDER

¶7

These revisions challenge the orders dated 15.05.2014, passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Salem, in Crl.M.P.Nos.1668 and 1667 of 2014 in S.T.C.No.554 of 2012 and C.C.No.209 of 2013, respectively.

¶8

The petitioner is an accused in S.T.C.No.554 of 2012 and C.C.No.209 of 2013 cases alleging offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By the orders under challenge, the Court below dismissed the petitions seeking examination of the cheques in question by an expert.

¶9

3.Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

¶10

4.The Court below has dismissed Crl.M.P.Nos.1668 and 1667 of 2014 informing that no material alteration was discernable to

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

the naked eye. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that the cheques had been issued in blank in favour of another person and the same had been misused towards foisting false cases. This Court finds no error in the orders under challenge and accordingly dismisses the present revisions. However, it is made clear that towards further satisfying itself regards the merits of the rival cases, the Court may resort to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court below will, bearing in mind that the cheques in the two cases bear adjacent numbers, try both cases together.

¶13

Sd/-
Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
msk
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.III,
Salem
2.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
2 ccs to m/s. R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocate, SR. 42881, 42880
2 ccs to M/s.C. Prakasam, Advocate, SR. 42656, 42655
Crl.R.C. Nos.628 & 629 of 2014
RSK (CO)
kk 25/9

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Ethirajulu v. M.Jayaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ethirajulu v. M.Jayaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Senthil @ Senthilkumar, Vs State Rep.by Inspector of

Gaffar Khan Vs Rashida Khan

V.Ramadoss Vs the State Rep by

P.Senapathi Vs the Inspector of Police

Kabar @Abdul Kabar Vs K.Boominathan

Castrol India Ltd. Vs Pemier Steel& Allied Industrie