RAVI.G vs MARISWAMY — 9/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section U/S 415. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 11th March 2026.
CRL.A - CRIMINAL APPEAL
CNR: KAMS010001582026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
7/2026
Filing Date
07-01-2026
Registration No
9/2026
Registration Date
07-01-2026
Court
PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU
Judge
426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
Decision Date
11th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAVI.G
Adv. Srinivas KR
Respondent(s)
MARISWAMY
Hearing History
Judge: 426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU
Disposed
JUDGEMENT
Await TCR
NOTICE
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT | |
| 10-02-2026 | Await TCR | |
| 09-01-2026 | NOTICE | |
| 08-01-2026 | ORDERS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Mysuru dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and confirmed the trial court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the legal presumption that he issued the cheque to discharge a legally recoverable debt, rejected his forgery claim (since the bank noted the signature as "illegible" rather than "forged"), and held that the trial court provided adequate opportunities for cross-examination which the appellant did not utilize. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The I Additional District & Sessions Judge at Mysuru dismissed the appellant's criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and confirmed the trial court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoring a cheque worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. The court found that the appellant failed to rebut the legal presumption that he issued the cheque to discharge a legally recoverable debt, rejected his forgery claim (since the bank noted the signature as "illegible" rather than "forged"), and held that the trial court provided adequate opportunities for cross-examination which the appellant did not utilize. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts