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

Case disposed

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

BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA Section U/S 415
INDIAN PENAL CODE Section U/S 138

Petitioner(s)

RAVI.G

Adv. Srinivas KR

Respondent(s)

MARISWAMY

Hearing History

Judge: 426-I ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE MYSURU

11-03-2026

Disposed

07-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

10-02-2026

Await TCR

09-01-2026

NOTICE

08-01-2026

ORDERS

Final Orders / Judgements

11-03-2026
Judgment

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case