Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Venugopal, J.
Manivannan —Petitioner
versus
Valarmathi —Respondent
Cri. OP No. (MD) Nos.16784 with Cri A (MD) SR 29313 of 2012
Decided on 8.11.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D.Venkatesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. A.P. Balasubramanian Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
IMPORTANT POINT
Criminal leave must be granted where complainant has raised some arguable and debatable points which require detail examination.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 378—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—Petitioner/Complainant has raised some arguable and debatable points which require detail examination at the time of final hearing of matter—Petitioner/Complainant has made out a case to grant leave to file present Criminal Appeal as against impugned judgment—Petition allowed. (Para 5)
M. Venugopal, J.—The Petitioner/Complainant has projected the instant Criminal Original Petition seeking leave of this Court to file the criminal appeal against the judgment made in C.C.No.257 of 2011 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (FTC), Palani on 10.9.2012.
2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, (FTC), Palani, on 10.9.2012, has inter alia observed that the petitioner/complainant has not established the offence against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act beyond reasonable doubt and resultantly acquitted him as per Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.
3. The plea of the petitioner/complainant before this Court is that on his side, he examined PWs 1 to 3 before the trial Court in C.C.No.257 of 2011 and marked Exs.P1 to P8 to substantiate his case. However, the Respondent/Accused has examined herself as RW1 and her husband examined as RW2 and marked Exs. R1 to R5.
4. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant strenuously contends that the Respondent/Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000 and issued two cheques, dated 12.12.2004, each for a sum of Rs.50,000 and that on 5.5.2005, he presented the cheques for collection. But the same were returned by the bankers with an endorsement of ‘insufficient funds’, dated 9.5.2005. After fulfilling the necessary formalities, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed a private complaint which was taken on file in C.C.No.257 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, (FTC), Palani. After contest, the learned Judicial Magistrate passed the judgment in C.C.No.257 of 2011 on 10.9.2012 acquitting the Respondent/Accused.
5. On going through the grounds raised by the Petitioner/Complainant/Appellant in the unnumbered Criminal Appeal, (Crl.A.(MD) SR 29313 of 2012), this Court finds that the Petitioner/Complainant has raised some arguable and debatable points, which require detail examination at the time of final hearing of the matter. Therefore, this Court after subjectively satisfying itself that the Petitioner/Complainant has made out a case to grant leave to file the present Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 10.9.2012 in C.C.No.257 of 2011, allows the Petition filed in that behalf in furtherance of substantial cause of justice.
No costs.
Petition allowed.
*******
