Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)Sri Murugan Financiers vs P.V. Perumal on 13 July, 2004
20. In the instant case, the appellant / complainant is only an
individual, therefore, it cannot be said that non-production of his account
books would affect the case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
though the same is relevant in a case relating to financial companies and other
institutions having books of account. The decision of this court in Murugan
Financiers vs. P.V.Perumal reported in 2005 Crl.L.J 269 ended in acquittal on
account of the non-production of books of accounts, sought for by the accused
therein has no relevancy in this case.
M.A.Nachimuthu vs Thiru N.Ravichandran on 24 March, 2007
In M.A.Nachimuthu vs. N.Ravichandran reported in 2007 (2) MLJ (Crl)
1684, this Court held that the complainant therein had not established the case
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, confirming the acquittal
recorded by the trial court, on the ground that no evidence was let in by the
complainant to prove that he had lent money as hand loan, which is also not
applicable to the case on hand.
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Punjab vs Hardial Singh & Ors on 8 May, 2009
19. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / accused relying on the
decision, State of Punjab vs. Hardial Singh, reported in 2010 (3) MLJ (Crl) 557
(SC) submitted that there was no proper notice under Section 138 (b) of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
decision has laid the ratio as follows :
D.Sekar vs G.Veerammal on 20 April, 2010
3. D.Sekar vs. G.Veerammal, 2010 (4) MLJ (Crl) 193
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
V.Varadaraj vs V.Karuppiah Nadar on 10 April, 2007
6. V.Varadaraj vs. V.Karuppiah Nadar, 2007 (2) MLJ (Crl) 900
1