The appellant admitted prima facie case for leave but made no substantive decision on the merits, instead issuing an administrative direction to number and list the case for admission considerations.
Direction to registry to number the appeal and list it for admission.
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.
Crl. O.P.No. 24223 of 2021 in Crl.A.SR.44315 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant would submit that the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondent/accused placing reliance on Ex.D3. The petitioner had denied having sent such a letter to the accused. Further, Ex.D3 does not even contain the signature of the petitioner. Further, no reply has been sent by the accused to the statutory notice. The respondent/accused has not denied the signature in the cheque. The Trial Court ignoring the provisions regarding the presumptions under the Act, had acquitted the respondent/accused. Prima facie case has been made out for grant of leave.
21.01.2022
vri/shk
Note:
Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order and list the same for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis admission.
Crl. O.P. No. 24223 of 2021
Accused
A. AD. JAGADISH CHANDIRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
