In this criminal appeal against acquittal, the High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the trial court's opinion that the appellant failed to prove consideration for the dishonoured cheque. The court held that the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondent is confirmed.
The present criminal appeal is dismissed. The order of acquittal is confirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 12-10-2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. SELVAM
Criminal Appeal No.421 of 2007
K. Nagalingam ...Appellant
Vs.
V. Selvaraj ...Respondent
Criminal Appeal under Section 378, Cr.P.C., against the
judgment of acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge of
Court of Sessions at Chennai (Fast Track Court No.5) in
C.A.No.414 of 2004 dated 20-12-2005 reversing the judgment
convicting the accused by the 7th Metropolitan Magistrate,
Chennai @ George Town in C.C.No.4433 of 2002 by his judgment
dated 30-09-2004.
For appellant : Mr. R. John Sathyan
For respondent : Mr. V. Srinivasa Babu
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been directed against the order of acquittal passed in Criminal Appeal No.414 of 2004 by the Sessions Court/ Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, wherein the conviction and sentence passed in Calendar Case No.4433 of 2002 by the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai @ George Town are reversed.
accused has given a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,22,000/-(Rupees One lakh twenty two thousand only) on 05-01-2001 in favour of the complainant and the same has been put into concerned Bank. But the concerned Bank has returned the same stating 'funds insufficient' and subsequently, a legal notice has been issued on 13-12-2001 to the accused and the same has been received by him on 26-12-2001. Even though the accused has received a legal notice, dated 13-12-2001 he has not discharged his liability and thereby, he committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Under the said circumstances, the present petition has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.
passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to be setaside and the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court are liable to be restored.
complaint as well as in statutory notice. But as stated earlier, no date has been mentioned either in the complaint or in statutory notice. Further, P.W.1 has deposed evidence to the effect that the cheque relating to C.C.No.4433 of 2002 has been given in favour of his wife by the wife of the accused. Therefore, it is needless to say that the cheque, in question is not supported by consideration.
(i) CDJ2009 MHC 3117 (S. Kamatchi Vs. Arkaa Medicament)
(ii) CDJ2012 MHC 5562 (S. Nagalakshmi rep. by Power Agent K.N. Venkataraman Vs. R. Nagalingam)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is sustainable in the absence of evidence establishing consideration for the cheque.
Whether the trial court correctly found the accused guilty despite the complainant failing to prove the cheque was issued for an enforceable debt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S. Kamatchi Vs. Arkaa MedicamentReferred¶25
CDJ2009 MHC 3117 (S. Kamatchi Vs. Arkaa Medicament)
S. Nagalakshmi rep. by Power Agent K.N. Venkataraman Vs. R. NagalingamReferred¶26
CDJ2012 MHC 5562 (S. Nagalakshmi rep. by Power Agent K.N. Venkataraman Vs. R. Nagalingam)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
K. Nagalingam
V. Selvaraj
A. Selvam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
