K SAKTHIVEL vs M P DHARMALINGAM — 183/2024

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(3). Disposed: Contested--Dismissed on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CRLA - Criminal Appeal

CNR: TNKR010028542024

e-Filing Number

31-08-2024

Filing Number

1670/2024

Filing Date

02-Sep-2024

Registration No

183/2024

Registration Date

17-Oct-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Karur

Judge

1-District Judge

Decision Date

01-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Dismissed

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure Section 374(3)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K SAKTHIVEL

    Adv. KARTHIK R.K

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M P DHARMALINGAM

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Copy of JudgmentView PDF

    Case Summary: Criminal Appeal 183/2024 Decision: The appellate court dismissed K. Sakthivel's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, upholding his sentence of six months imprisonment and a compensation order of Rs. 20,00,000 payable to M.P. Dharmalingam within one month. Key Reasoning: The court found that Sakthivel failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Though he claimed the cheque was issued as security for a loan he had already repaid, he produced no documentary evidence or witnesses to support this defense. The complainant established a legally enforceable debt through a promissory note and presented evidence of the cheque's dishonor, while Sakthivel merely denied the allegations without substantiation—constituting an impermissible "bare denial." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    District Judge

  4. 07-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    District Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  6. 26-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  7. 25-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  8. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  9. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  10. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  11. 04-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  12. 27-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  13. 16-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  14. 31-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  15. 29-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  16. 20-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  17. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    District Judge

  18. 17-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  19. 17-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  20. 10-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  21. 28-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  22. 20-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  23. 07-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  24. 29-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  25. 22-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  26. 15-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  27. 25-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  28. 04-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  29. 25-Aug-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  30. 28-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  31. 15-Jul-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  32. 16-Jun-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  33. 23-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  34. 02-Apr-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  35. 12-Mar-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  36. 24-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  37. 03-Feb-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  38. 08-Jan-2025

    Arguments

    District Judge

  39. 07-Dec-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge

  40. 11-Nov-2024

    Arguments

    District Judge

  41. 17-Oct-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  42. 02-Sep-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 183/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Criminal Appeal 183/2024 Decision: The appellate court dismissed K. Sakthivel's appeal and confirmed his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, upholding his sentence of six months imprisonment and a compensation order of Rs. 20,00,000 payable to M.P. Dharmalingam within one month. Key Reasoning: The court found that Sakthivel failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Though he claimed the cheque was issued as security for a loan he had already repaid, he produced no documentary evidence or witnesses to support this defense. The complainant established a legally enforceable debt through a promissory note and presented evidence of the cheque's dishonor, while Sakthivel merely denied the allegations without substantiation—constituting an impermissible "bare denial." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case