Disposed

B.Saravanan v. R.Ponmudi

Madras HC6 Dec 2017CRL A/694/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain criminal appeals arising from cheque-bounce cases involving non-bank cheque, citing the Full Bench judgment in S. Ganapathy Vs. N. Senthil. Appeals were disposed of while remitting papers to the District and Sessions Judge.

What did the court decide?

Papers transmitted to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem; Appeals disposed of.

B.Saravanan Vs R.Ponmudi — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :06.12.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶6

Crl.A.Nos. 694 and 700 of 2006
B.Saravanan ... Appellant
(in both the Crl.Appeals)
Vs.
R.Ponmudi ... Respondent
(in both the Crl.Appeals)
Criminal Appeals filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the orders of acquittal of the respondent / accused
dated 06.01.2006 in C.C.Nos.667 & 666 of 2005, before the learned
Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, respectively.

¶7

For Appellant : Mr.R.Nalliyappan (in both the Crl.Appeals) For Respondent : No appearance (in both the Crl.Appeals)

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

C O M M O N J U D G E M E N T

¶11

For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent are referred to as complainant and accused.

¶12

The complainant initiated prosecutions in C.C.Nos. 667 & 666 of 2005, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, for the alleged offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Act, against the accused, in which, the accused was acquitted by judgments dated 06.01.2006 aggrieved by which, the complainant is before this Court.

¶13

In view of the Judgment of a Full Bench of this Court in S.Ganapathy Vs. N.Senthilvel [ (2016) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 641 (FB) ] , this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain these appeals and therefore, the Registry is directed to transmit all the papers relating to these appeals to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after retaining the photocopies of the same on file.

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶15

¶16

The complainant and the accused are directed to appear before

¶17

the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Salem, on 25.01.2018 at

¶18

10.30 a.m.

¶19

Since, the complaints are of the year 2005, the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Salem, is directed to dispose of the Criminal
Appeals as early as possible.
6. With the above observation, the present Criminal Appeals stand
disposed of.
06.12.2017
Speaking/Non speaking order
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
ms

¶20

http://www.judis.nic.in

R. HEMALATHA.J.,

The Judicial Magistrate No.V,
Salem.
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Salem.
Crl.A.Nos. 694 and 700 of 2006
06.12.2017

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

B.Saravanan v. R.Ponmudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Saravanan v. R.Ponmudi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.P.Suryaprakasam, Vs The Chief Secretary to

Fisherman Care, Reg. Asso. Vs Union of India, rep. by the

M/S.Shriram Transport Vs Mohammed Farook

M/S.S.v.Nagar Benefit Fund Vs U.Shahul Ameed

The Sub Registrar, Vs N.Madhorubagan

T.L.Narayanan Vs G.Kannan