Cheque bounce case acquittals can be challenged before district courts from July 7: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court's Registrar (Judicial) has issued a notification intimating lawyers and litigants that the High Court would not entertain petitions to grant leave, to file appeals, from Monday (July 7, 2025) in accordance with a judicial order passed Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan.
While hearing two such leave petitions on June 30, 2025, the judge pointed out the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran (2025) had ruled victims in cheque bounce cases were entitled to file appeals as a matter of right without having to seek the leave of the High Court.
The top court had pointed out the procedure of filing appeals, against acquittal orders passed by judicial magistrates, in the High Court, that too after obtaining its leave, had to be followed only in cases where the private complainants were not the victims in a criminal case.
'A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal,' the Supreme Court had said.
However, since the top court had not mentioned whether its decision should be given effect retrospectively or prospectively, Justice Ilanthiraiyan decided to give effect to it from July 7, 2025. 'The district courts are directed to entertain the appeals... from July 7, 2025 onwards,' he ordered.
The judge also directed the High Court Registry to circulate his order to all district courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Australian woman Erin Patterson is convicted of 3 murders for poisoning her in-laws with mushrooms
Australian woman Erin Patterson was Monday (July 7, 2025) found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous mushrooms for lunch. The jury in the Supreme Court trial in Victoria State returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia. Patterson faces life in prison and will be sentenced later, but a date for the hearing hasn't yet been scheduled. Patterson, who sat in the dock between two prison officers, showed no emotion but blinked rapidly as the verdicts were read. Three of Patterson's four lunch guests — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died in the hospital after the 2023 meal at her home in Leongatha, at which she served individual beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who survived the meal. It wasn't disputed that Patterson served the mushrooms or that the pastries killed her guests. The jury was required to decide whether she knew the lunch contained death caps, and if she intended for them to die. The guilty verdicts, which were required to be unanimous, indicated that jurors rejected Patterson's defence that the presence of the poisonous fungi in the meal was a terrible accident, caused by the mistaken inclusion of foraged mushrooms that she didn't know were death caps. Prosecutors didn't offer a motive for the killings, but during the trial highlighted strained relations between Patterson and her estranged husband, and frustration that she had felt about his parents in the past. The case turned on the question of whether Patterson meticulously planned a triple murder or accidentally killed three people she loved, including her children's only surviving grandparents. Her lawyers said she had no reason to do so — she had recently moved to a beautiful new home, was financially comfortable, had sole custody of her children and was due to begin studying for a degree in nursing and midwifery. But prosecutors suggested Patterson had two faces — the woman who publicly appeared to have a good relationship with her parents-in-law, while her private feelings about them were kept hidden. Her relationship with her estranged husband, Simon Patterson, who was invited to the fatal lunch but didn't go, deteriorated in the year before the deaths, the prosecution said. The simplest facts of what happened that day and immediately afterward were hardly disputed. But Patterson's motivations for what she did and why were pored over in detail during the lengthy trial, at which more than 50 witnesses were called. The individual beef Wellington pastries Patterson served her guests was one point of friction, because the recipe she used contained directions for a single, family-sized portion. Prosecutors said that she reverted to individual servings, so she could lace the other diners' portions, but not her own, with the fatal fungi — but Patterson said that she was unable to find the correct ingredients to make the recipe as directed. Nearly every other detail of the fateful day was scrutinized at length, including why Patterson sent her children out to a film before her guests arrived, why she added additional dried mushrooms to the recipe from her pantry, why she didn't become ill when the other diners did, and why she disposed of a food dehydrator after the deaths and told investigators that she didn't own one. Patterson acknowledged some lies during her evidence — including that she'd never foraged mushrooms or owned a dehydrator. But she said that those claims were made in panic as she realized her meal had killed people. She said she didn't become as ill as the other diners since she vomited after the meal because of an eating disorder. She denied that she told her guests she had cancer as a ruse to explain why she invited them to her home that day. The bizarre and tragic case has lingered in the minds of Australians and has provoked fervor among the public and media. During the trial, five separate podcasts analyzed each day of the proceedings and several news outlets ran live blogs giving moment-by-moment accounts of more than two months of evidence. At least one television drama and a documentary about the case are slated for production. Prominent Australian crime writers were seen in court throughout the trial. As it emerged half an hour before the verdict that court was reconvening, about 40 members of the public queued outside the courthouse in the rural town of Morwell in hope of watching the outcome in person. News outlets reported that family members of the victims were not among those present. Before the verdict, newspapers published photos of black privacy screens erected at the entrance to Erin Patterson's home. Dozens of reporters from throughout Australia and from news outlets abroad crowded around friends of Patterson's as they left the courthouse Monday. 'I'm saddened, but it is what it is,' said one friend, Ali Rose, who wore sunglasses and fought back tears. Asked what she thought Patterson felt as the verdicts were read, Rose said, 'I don't know.'
India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Lost Rs 18 lakh in 6 months: Financial advisor's warning on online betting
A financial advisor recently watched one of his clients lose Rs 18 lakh in just six months. Not to stocks, not to crypto, but to online Kumar, a Sebi-registered analyst and founder of SahajMoney, shared the story in a LinkedIn post. 'One of my clients lost Rs 18 lakhs in 6 months,' he wrote. 'Not to stocks. Not to cryptos. To online betting.'advertisementThe client kept the losses hidden from his wife until the situation had already spiralled. 'He had taken a personal loan, and was borrowing from friends,' Kumar added. The rise of online betting apps, often disguised as harmless fantasy sports or casino-style games, has created a fast-growing but poorly understood problem in India's digital economy. Flashy interfaces, instant rewards, and near-constant notifications are all part of a design meant to keep users hooked. 'Betting apps are designed like slot machines,' Kumar noted. 'Flashy. Addictive. Instant dopamine hits. And they're just one swipe away.'According to him, the pattern is alarmingly familiar. It begins with a small, harmless-sounding amount—'Just Rs 500 for fun. You win once. You feel lucky. You chase the high.' But soon, the behaviour escalates.'These apps use casino psychology. Near wins. Fake bonuses. Constant notifications,' he wrote, warning that even young professionals with comfortable salaries are getting drawn in. 'I've seen it happen to young IT professionals making Rs 15 lakh a year.'The financial consequences are often severe. 'Loan apps, credit cards, even PF withdrawals,' Kumar said. 'People borrow to keep playing.'Beyond the money, the social and emotional toll is also significant. 'It destroys families,' he wrote. 'One guy told me he started lying to his wife, skipping EMIs, and hiding transactions. The stress? Unbearable.'While some Indian states have attempted to regulate online betting, national legislation is still missing. 'The Supreme Court just asked the govt if it's time for a national law. I say: long overdue.'Kumar is careful to clarify that his concern isn't about taking the fun out of digital platforms. It's about transparency and awareness. 'This isn't about being against fun. It's about understanding how these platforms exploit behavioral finance to trap users.'His message is aimed squarely at young people, often the most vulnerable to such platforms. 'If you're tempted by betting apps—pause. Think. You're not playing a game. You're playing against a system designed for you to lose.'(Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a certified financial advisor before making any investment or financial decisions. The views expressed are independent and do not reflect the official position of the India Today Group.)- Ends
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Australian Erin Patterson found guilty of all counts in mushroom murders case
Australian woman Erin Patterson was Monday found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband's relatives by deliberately serving them poisonous mushrooms for lunch. The jury in the Supreme Court trial in Victoria state returned a verdict after six days of deliberations, following a nine-week trial that gripped Australia. Patterson faces life in prison and will be sentenced at a later date. Three of Patterson's four lunch guests — her parents-in-law Don and Gail Patterson, and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson — died in the hospital after the 2023 meal at her home in Leongatha, at which she served individual beef Wellington pastries containing death cap mushrooms. She was also found guilty of attempting to murder Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband, who survived the meal.
