Rajendran v. Kesavan
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner sought special leave to appeal acquittal in cheque dishonour case. High Court held accused rebutted presumption under Section 139 NI Act as liability was not legally subsisting, dismissing petition.
What did the court decide?
Special leave to file appeal is not granted; petition stands dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2015
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA
Crl.O.P.No.31077 of 2014 in Crl.A.Sr.No.54907 of 2014
Rajendran ... Petitioner/Complainant Vs. Kesavan ... Respondent/Accused Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. to grant special leave to the petitioner to file the appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.III, Salem.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thirugnanam O R D E R
This petition is filed for granting leave to the petitioner to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 09.10.2014 in C.C.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.III, Salem.
2.The petitioner as a complainant preferred a private complaint against the respondent/accused stating that on 18.10.2012, the accused intending to purchase the land, has borrowed a sum of Rs.90,00,000/- from the complainant and issued five cheques and agreed that if the accused is not able to purchase the land, he would repay the same. Since the accused has not repaid the same, the complainant presented the cheques for encashment and the same were returned as 'funds insufficient'. So the complainant sent a statutory notice to the accused, even though the accused received the notice, neither he repaid the amount nor he sent any reply. Therefore, the appellant preferred a private complaint against the accused under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called as “the Act”).
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the special leave to appeal should be granted against the order of acquittal.
Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Whether the trial court committed any error in holding that the presumption was rebutted.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rajendran
- respondent
Kesavan
Coram
R.Mala
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court