Mekala Ramanna vs M.Akilan — 359/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 200. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 06th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNTR350042672022
Filing Number
4264/2022
Filing Date
07-11-2022
Registration No
359/2022
Registration Date
23-12-2022
Court
Fast Track Court at Magisterial Level, Ambattur
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
Decision Date
06th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mekala Ramanna
Adv. M/S.T.RAMADEVI, MR.D.VIJAYKANTH REDDY
Respondent(s)
M.Akilan
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court
Disposed
Judgement
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 24-02-2026 | Judgement |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 27-01-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court in Ambattur acquitted Mr. M. Akilan of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that while the accused drew cheques for Rs. 1,50,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds, he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of debt by proving he had already repaid Rs. 2,79,000 (principal plus interest) through bank transfers. The court held that the complainant concealed the repayment facts and approached the court with "unclean hands," creating serious doubts about whether a legally enforceable debt existed at the time the cheques were presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
The Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court in Ambattur acquitted Mr. M. Akilan of charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, finding that while the accused drew cheques for Rs. 1,50,000 that bounced due to insufficient funds, he successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of debt by proving he had already repaid Rs. 2,79,000 (principal plus interest) through bank transfers. The court held that the complainant concealed the repayment facts and approached the court with "unclean hands," creating serious doubts about whether a legally enforceable debt existed at the time the cheques were presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts