A Petchimuthu vs Manamalli — 71/2023

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 06th June 2026.

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNCG010054782023

Case disposed

Filing Number

4100/2023

Filing Date

12-07-2023

Registration No

71/2023

Registration Date

18-07-2023

Court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

06th June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Acts & Sections

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 Section 374

Petitioner(s)

A Petchimuthu

Adv. RAVIKUMAR MUNUSWAMY

Respondent(s)

Manamalli

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Principal District Judge

06-06-2026

Disposed

28-04-2026

Judgement

15-04-2026

Judgement

16-03-2026

Judgement

07-03-2026

Judgement

Final Orders / Judgements

06-06-2026
Copy of Judgment

Summary of Criminal Appeal No. 71/2023 The appellate court dismissed A. Petchimuthu's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petchimuthu had borrowed Rs. 1,75,000 from Manamalli in 2011 and issued a cheque for Rs. 2,48,500 in 2014 toward repayment, which dishonored due to account closure. The court found the accused failed to rebut statutory presumptions of debt after ignoring a demand notice, and minor discrepancies in cheque amount and missing cheque number in the notice did not invalidate prosecution. The 3-month imprisonment and Rs. 3,50,000 compensation sentence were upheld as proportionate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of Criminal Appeal No. 71/2023 The appellate court dismissed A. Petchimuthu's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Petchimuthu had borrowed Rs. 1,75,000 from Manamalli in 2011 and issued a cheque for Rs. 2,48,500 in 2014 toward repayment, which dishonored due to account closure. The court found the accused failed to rebut statutory presumptions of debt after ignoring a demand notice, and minor discrepancies in cheque amount and missing cheque number in the notice did not invalidate prosecution. The 3-month imprisonment and Rs. 3,50,000 compensation sentence were upheld as proportionate. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Chengalpet All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case