Case brief
What is this about?
Madras High Court, Crl.A.No.569 of 2022 (decided 27.11.2025), M. Veeramani (appellant/complainant) v. Sridharan (respondent/accused), D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J. — appeal under S.378 CrPC against acquittal in C.C.No.2727 of 2017 under S.138 NI Act concerning a Rs.8,00,000/- cheque dated 04.05.2017. Held: presumption rebutted through P.W.1's prevaricating cross-examination; credible doubt arose; acquittal not perverse; notice-service contention rejected for want of evidence; appeal dismissed. Counsel for appellant relied on R.Inbaraj v. The State (Crl.A.(MD).No.554 of 2019, para 24) on perversity; the Court did not find perversity.
What did the court decide?
The respondent's contention that the notice was wilfully served at a vacated address was rejected: no evidence was let in that the accused was not residing at the address mentioned in the statutory notice, nor that the complainant was aware of it at the material time.