3191/2024
Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 30th March 2026.
CRLMP - Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
CNR: TNDG010054402024
Filing Number
3553/2024
Filing Date
28-Oct-2024
Registration No
3191/2024
Registration Date
28-Oct-2024
Court
Principal District Court, Dindugul
Judge
2-Addl. District and Sessions Judge
Decision Date
30-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Dismissed
Last updated 23-May-2026
Petitioner(s)
-
1.A. James
Adv. D. ABRAHAM ILAYARAJA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
30-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
-
30-Mar-2026
Copy of OrderView PDF
Case Summary The Dindigul Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's petition seeking to introduce additional evidence (departmental head testimony) to prove he was on duty on the cheque issuance date. The court found the petition was an afterthought lacking due diligence, as the appellant had full opportunity during trial to present this defence but made no cross-examination suggestions and provided no justification for the omission. The court held that under Section 391 CrPC, additional evidence cannot be used to patch weak points post-conviction, and the proposed evidence was immaterial to the core issue of whether a legally enforceable debt existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
30-Mar-2026
Disposed
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Orders
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Mar-2026
Orders
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Mar-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
27-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
19-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Dec-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Nov-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Nov-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
22-Oct-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
06-Oct-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
16-Sep-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Sep-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
13-Aug-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Jul-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
11-Jul-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Jul-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
30-Jun-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
26-Jun-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
02-Jun-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Mar-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
25-Feb-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
18-Feb-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
14-Feb-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
24-Jan-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
21-Jan-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
03-Jan-2025
Enquiry
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
10-Dec-2024
For further Proceedings
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
29-Nov-2024
For further Proceedings
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
12-Nov-2024
IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending
Addl. District and Sessions Judge
-
28-Oct-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
28-Oct-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 3191/2024
Case Summary The Dindigul Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appellant's petition seeking to introduce additional evidence (departmental head testimony) to prove he was on duty on the cheque issuance date. The court found the petition was an afterthought lacking due diligence, as the appellant had full opportunity during trial to present this defence but made no cross-examination suggestions and provided no justification for the omission. The court held that under Section 391 CrPC, additional evidence cannot be used to patch weak points post-conviction, and the proposed evidence was immaterial to the core issue of whether a legally enforceable debt existed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts