R.Jayamoorthy vs N.Coby — 323/2022
Case under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138. Disposed: Contested--Acquitted on 30th March 2026.
STC - Small Cause Calendar case / Summary Trial Case
CNR: TNVP100005052022
Filing Number
505/2022
Filing Date
28-06-2022
Registration No
323/2022
Registration Date
28-06-2022
Court
Judicial Magistrate No. I Court, Tindivanam
Judge
1-Judicial Magistrate I
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Acquitted
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
R.Jayamoorthy
Adv. T.Sabariselvan
Respondent(s)
N.Coby
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Judicial Magistrate I
Disposed
Judgement
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Judgement |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 323 of 2022 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted N. Coby under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, finding him not guilty. The court held that while statutory presumptions initially favored the complainant, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of legal debt through cross-examination, and the complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The bail bond was cancelled. Key Reasoning: The court found serious doubts regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt because the complainant advanced Rs. 4,75,000 without obtaining a promissory note or documentary evidence, then produced a cheque five months later. This lack of documentation, combined with the accused's defense that the cheque was given to a third party (Asaithambi), successfully shifted the burden to the complainant to prove the debt beyond reasonable doubt—which he failed to do. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: S.T.C. No. 323 of 2022 Court Decision: The Judicial Magistrate acquitted N. Coby under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, finding him not guilty. The court held that while statutory presumptions initially favored the complainant, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of legal debt through cross-examination, and the complainant failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The bail bond was cancelled. Key Reasoning: The court found serious doubts regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt because the complainant advanced Rs. 4,75,000 without obtaining a promissory note or documentary evidence, then produced a cheque five months later. This lack of documentation, combined with the accused's defense that the cheque was given to a third party (Asaithambi), successfully shifted the burden to the complainant to prove the debt beyond reasonable doubt—which he failed to do. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts