2018 (4) TMI 1878

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....No.52 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal. The said Criminal Appeal has been filed by the respondent as against the judgment passed in C.C.No.687 of 2002 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. 3. At the time of enquiry in Crl.A.No.52 of 2005, the respondent filed two petitions, namely, Crl.M.P.Nos.399 of 2010 and 150 of 2011 under the provisions of Section 391 [1] [2] of Crl.P.C., in which, he prayed to receive the additional documents and prayed to permit him for producing the additional evidence.  After hearing both sides, the learned Additional District Judge, Namakkal, allowed both the petitions and directed the Trial Court to record the additional evidence after receiving the docum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efore the learned Magistrate, the revision petitioner issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the respondent. After receiving the said notice, the respondent sent a reply notice, in which, the entire defense now taken by the respondent have been elaborately mentioned. So, the respondent is not attempted to introduce the new facts in this case. Even though the documents enclosed along with the petition are xerox in nature. It would be open to the petitioner to raise objections at the time of marking the documents. In the said circumstances filing the revision petition is unnecessary. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissing the Revision Petitions. 8. Since the respondent has filed the petitions before....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the competent court after seeing the original.  Moreover, it was hold in one of the document executed on 17.06.1999, the serial number of the cheque is now under the dispute was mentioned and that the said cheque was in the custody of one V.Madeswaran. 10. Now, on going through the defense taken by the respondent in the Criminal Appeal is the alleged cheque pertaining to the Criminal Appeal is not handed over to the petitioner by the respondent directly. The said cheque goes to the hands of the petitioner only through one V.Madeswaran. The said defense was already mentioned in the reply notice sent to the revision petitioner. 11. Accordingly, the particulars available with the additional documents are related with the defense ....