J. SHAMLAL Vs. G. MANOHARAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.S.D.M. & CO., NO.6, AZIZ MULK 1ST STREET, THOUSAND LIGHT, CHENNAI
LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-199
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on December 19,2016

J. Shamlal Appellant
VERSUS
G. Manoharan, Proprietor, M/S.S.D.M. And Co., No.6, Aziz Mulk 1St Street, Thousand Light, Chennai Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GIRIDHARI LAL RATHI V. P.T.V RAMANUJACHARIM [REFERRED TO]
A V MURTHY VS. B S NAGABASAVANNA [REFERRED TO]
JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI VS. INDUSIND BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
RATHEESH KUMAR VS. JITENDRA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.VENUGOPAL,J. - (1.)- The Appellant/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court as against the Judgment of Acquittal dated 06.09.2013 in C.C.No.3332 of 2010 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, (Fast Track Court No.IV), George Town, Chennai.
(2.)The trial Court, while passing the impugned Judgment in C.C.No.3332 of 2010 dated 06.09.2013, at paragraph 14, had, among other things, observed that '.. the afore-stated financiers were not examined in the case to prove the debt amount to be paid by the Respondent to the financiers', further the said financiers details were not informed on behalf of the Complainant and that for collecting the debt, the financiers had not given any authorisation and opined that under the present circumstances, there arises suspicion on the case of the Complainant and by granting the benefit of doubt in favour of the Respondent/Accused found him not guilty, since the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, acquitted him under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
(3.)Challenging the Legality of the Judgment of Acquittal dated 06.09.2013 passed by the trial Court in acquitting the Respondent/ Accused, the Appellant/Complainant (through his Power Agent) has filed the instant Appeal, basically contending that the trial Court had acquitted the Respondent/Accused based only on 'presumptions, surmises and conjectures' and furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 was not taken into account while passing the impugned Judgment.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.