Dismissed

N.Eswaramoorthy v. Vennilamani

Madras HC12 Feb 2015CRL OP/32884/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal O.P. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, the single-judge bench dismissed the petition, holding that contradictions in the complainant's evidence regarding the promissory note justified the trial court's finding and no merit existed for setting aside the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Special leave to prefer appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. granted to petitioner; Crl.A.Sr.No.28880 of 2013 remains dismissed.

N.Eswaramoorthy Vs Vennilamani — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 12.02.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.32884 of 2014

¶6

in Crl.A.Sr.No.28880 of 2013

¶7

N.Eswaramoorthy ... Petitioner/Complainant Vs. Vennilamani ... 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 21.01.2013 in S.T.C.No.197 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra O R D E R

¶9

This petition is filed for granting leave to the petitioner to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 21.01.2013 in S.T.C.No.197 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore.

¶10

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused stating that the petitioner has not proved that the respondent issued Ex.P1 cheque for discharging his legally subsisting liability. In the complaint and notice itself, it was stated that on 7^th December 2008, the respondent borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- and executed promissory note and to discharge the same, he issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 04.02.2009. But the trial Court without considering the same, acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, he prayed for granting leave to file the appeal.

¶11

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the typed set of papers.

¶12

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

¶13

4.This petition is filed to grant leave to the petitioner to file the appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In such circumstances, the appellant/complainant has to put forth his case for conviction on the respondent and then he would entitle for leave to file appeal.

¶14

5.The case of the petitioner is that the respondent/accused had borrowed Rs.7,00,000/- on 07.12.2008 and executed the promissory note. Since the respondent has not repaid the amount, the petitioner made demands, at that time, the respondent issued Ex.P1 cheque dated 04.02.2009 for Rs.7,00,000/-. When the petitioner presented the cheque for encashment, it was returned as 'funds insufficient' on 13.03.2009. Therefore, the petitioner had sent a statutory notice to the respondent under Section 138(b) of Negotiable Instruments Act. Even though the respondent received the same, neither he sent any reply nor he paid the amount. Hence, the petitioner has preferred a private complaint against the respondent.

¶15

6.On perusal of the records, it reveals that even though the petitioner has stated that the respondent had executed the promissory note, he has not filed the same before the Court. In the complaint and legal notice itself, it was stated that on 07.12.2008, the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and executed promissory note and to discharge the same, he issued Ex.P1 cheque. Whereas when the petitioner was in witness box at the time of filing proof affidavit, during his chief-examination, in para-3, he stated that when he demanded repayment of the amount, the accused took back the promissory note and issued a cheque for Rs.7,00,000/- dated 04.02.2009. But during his cross-examination, he stated that promissory note is with him and he is ready to file the document before the Court. So there is contradiction in the complaint as well as the evidence of P.W.1/petitioner. The trial Court in para-13 of the judgment properly appreciated the above aspects in proper manner and rightly acquitted the accused.

¶16

7.Considering the aforestated circumstances of the case, I am of the view, the trial Court considered all the aspects in proper perspective and rightly acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, I do not find any merits in this petition to grant special leave to prefer appeal and accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Consequently, Crl.A.Sr. is rejected.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

Asst.Registrar (AD I)

¶19

Sub Asst. Registrar

¶20

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court No.II, Coimbatore.

¶24

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.32884 of 2014 in Crl.A.Sr.No.28880 of 2013

¶26

SR(CO)
kk 4/3

¶27

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

N.Eswaramoorthy v. Vennilamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Eswaramoorthy v. Vennilamani

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Ravichandran

N.Sundararajan Vs R.M.Venkatesan

Jeevan Singh @ Lambu Vs the Intelligence Officer

R. Sivasubramaniyan Vs Joint Director and Head of

Murugan Alias Duraimurugan Vs the Inspector of Police

Mrs.M.Saroja Vs Mrs.S.Amali Arokia Marry