ANBU MEYYAPPAN vs SAMBATH — 162/2024

Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 23rd March 2026.

CC - Calendar Case

CNR: TNSV120027592024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

05-09-2024

Filing Number

2758/2024

Filing Date

04-10-2024

Registration No

162/2024

Registration Date

07-10-2024

Court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi

Judge

3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi

Decision Date

23rd March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Acquitted

Acts & Sections

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 318
Mp/13/2026 Classification : 317 Cr.pc Section SAMBATHANBU MEYYAPPAN

Petitioner(s)

ANBU MEYYAPPAN

Adv. abdul sithikque

Respondent(s)

SAMBATH

Hearing History

Judge: 3-Judicial Magistrate (FTC ML), Karaikudi

23-03-2026

Disposed

18-03-2026

Judgement

17-03-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Arguments

07-03-2026

Evidence

Final Orders / Judgements

23-03-2026
Copy of Judgment

Case Summary: Anbu Meyyappan v. Sambath (CC 162/2024) The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi acquitted both accused of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Although the complainant proved the cheque's dishonour and statutory notice compliance, the court found he failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The complainant lacked personal knowledge of the underlying construction transaction (which involved his brother), couldn't demonstrate authorization to receive payment, and showed material contradictions in his testimony. The court held the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions through cross-examination alone, applying the "preponderance of probabilities" standard. The complaint was dismissed and accused acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Anbu Meyyappan v. Sambath (CC 162/2024) The Fast Track Court at Karaikudi acquitted both accused of cheque dishonour charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Although the complainant proved the cheque's dishonour and statutory notice compliance, the court found he failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The complainant lacked personal knowledge of the underlying construction transaction (which involved his brother), couldn't demonstrate authorization to receive payment, and showed material contradictions in his testimony. The court held the accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions through cross-examination alone, applying the "preponderance of probabilities" standard. The complaint was dismissed and accused acquitted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Karaikudi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case