Mohamed Udhuman Ali vs Dhanaraj — 89/2024

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374. Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 25th March 2026.

Case disposed

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNDG010048912024

e-Filing Number

17-09-2024

Filing Number

3157/2024

Filing Date

30-Sep-2024

Registration No

89/2024

Registration Date

03-Oct-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Dindugul

Judge

2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Decision Date

25-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 23-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Mohamed Udhuman Ali

    Adv. RAMKUMAR C G

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Dhanaraj

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the accused guilty of issuing a cheque for Rs. 7,00,000 that was dishonored. The court rejected the accused's defense that the cheque was misused, citing internal inconsistencies in his statements and his failure to substantiate claims through credible evidence or witness examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  5. 05-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  6. 17-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  7. 29-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  8. 21-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  9. 12-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  10. 03-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  11. 16-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  12. 06-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  13. 25-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  14. 12-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  15. 31-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  16. 10-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  17. 06-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  18. 24-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  19. 17-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  20. 02-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  21. 19-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  22. 12-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  23. 05-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  24. 24-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  25. 16-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  26. 02-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  27. 11-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  28. 29-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  29. 19-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  30. 18-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  31. 23-Jan-2025

    For further Proceedings

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  32. 28-Nov-2024

    Await Records

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  33. 25-Oct-2024

    Await Records

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  34. 14-Oct-2024

    Await Records

    Addl. District and Sessions Judge

  35. 03-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 30-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 89/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul dismissed the appellant's appeal and upheld the trial court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding the accused guilty of issuing a cheque for Rs. 7,00,000 that was dishonored. The court rejected the accused's defense that the cheque was misused, citing internal inconsistencies in his statements and his failure to substantiate claims through credible evidence or witness examination. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case