V.Sujatha Vs M/S.Tablets India Limited

M/s.Tablets India Limited, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, B.N.Dharmendra, “Jhaver Center”, 4 th Floor R.A.Building, No.72, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008 ..... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER:

¶12

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 438 & 442 of BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records and set aside the impugned order dated 09.06.2025 made in Crl.MP.No.6326 of 2025 in STC.No.5130 of 2024, on the file of the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, at Egmore, Chennai, consequently to permit the petitioners /Accused to examine the witnesses namely (1) Mr.Godfred, M/s.Tablets India Limited, (2) Mr.Arul, M/s.Tablets India Limited, (3) Mr.Rakappan M/s.Tablets India Limited and (4) Mr.Ramakrishna, son of Haribabu, as defense witnesses, and to issue summons to their respective addresses, as stated in Crl.MP.No.6326 of 2025 in STC.No.5130 of 2024, on the file of the XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, at

¶13

Page 1 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2025

¶16

Egmore, Chennai.

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Ramanareddy

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

T his criminal revision case has been filed against the order dated 09.06.2025 passed in Crl.MP.No.6326 of 2025 in STC.No.5130 of 2024, on the file of the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, at Egmore, Chennai, t hereby dismissed the petition filed under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C. to call upon the witness No.4 to depose.

¶20

The petitioners are accused 1 & 3 in STC.No.5130 of 2024 filed by the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 138 of NI Act. While cross examination of PW1, the petitioners took stand that they handed over the cheques concerned through the sales representatives of the respondent, which were unfilled signed cheques, for security purpose. However, the petitioners did not send any reply notice for the statutory notice issued by the respondent. That apart, they admitted the signature and also the issuance of the cheques. Further, no prudent person would issue cheques, that too through sales representatives. Therefore, this Court find no discrepancies in the impugned order passed by the trial court.

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2025

¶24

3.

¶25

Hence, this criminal revision case is dismissed. However, the

¶26

personal appearance of accused 1 & 2 is dispensed with and they shall be represented by a counsel after filing appropriate application. Accused 1 & 2 shall be present before the Court below at the time of furnishing of copies, framing charges, questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and at the time of passing judgment. Further, the trial court is directed to complete the trial within the period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶27

27.06.2025

¶28

Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order lok

¶29

Page 3 of 4

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2025

¶32

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. lok

¶33

To

¶34

1.The learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, at Egmore, Chennai 2.B.N.Dharmendra, Authorized Signatory, M/s.Tablets India Limited, “Jhaver Center”, 4 th Floor R.A.Building, No.72, Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008

¶35

Crl.R.C.No.908 of 2025

¶36

27.06.2025

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

V.Sujatha v. M/S.Tablets India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sujatha v. M/S.Tablets India Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheela Jeppiar(deceased) Vs State by Inspector of Police

Chinnapaiyan Vs State by, The Inspector of Police

Murugan Vs The State Rep by, The Inspector of Police

K.Nagaraj Vs G.Murugesan

Lakshmanan Vs The State Rep by

V.Sujatha Vs M/S.Tablets India Limited