C O M M O N O R D E R

The criminal original petitions have been filed seeking to grant special leave to file criminal appeals against the judgment dated 11.12.2023 passed by the learned Fast Track Court No-I Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore in C.C.Nos.243 of 2017, 400 of 2017, 616 of

2016 and 615 of 2016 respectively.

2.Since the issue involved in these petitions and the parties involved are one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by way of a common order. For brevity, the petitioner would be hereinafter referred to as 'complainant' and the respondent would be hereinafter referred to as 'accused'.

3.The petitioner is the complainant in C.C.Nos.243 of 2017, 400 of 2017, 616 of 2016 and 615 of 2016 respectively, on the file of the learned Fast Track Court No-I Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and he filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the respondent and after adjudication, the trial Court acquitted the accused/ respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed these petitions seeking leave to file appeals.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the complainant and the accused are friends and the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- on different dates from the complainant and repaid only a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and inorder to repay the balance amount, the respondent issued cheques bearing nos.079495 dated 14.12.2015 drawn on ICICI Bank, 000453 dated 10.02.2016 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, 000454 dated 10.03.2016 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank and 000455 dated 10.04.2016 drawn on Karur Vysya Bank. The said cheques when presented for collection were returned for the reason 'payment stopped by drawer'. Thereafter, the complainant after issuing legal notices to the accused lodged the complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as against the accused.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the complainant, in order to prove the case, examined himself as P.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 in all the cases. The respondent examined himself as D.W.1 and marked exhibits Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 in all the cases. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused did not deny the signature in the instruments and further submitted that the initial burden lies upon the complainant to prove that there was legally enforceable debt by the accused and the same was established, however, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the ground that there are many contradiction in the case of the complainant and the evidence adduced, which is not sustainable one.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

7.It is the consistent ratio of the Courts that grant of leave is not a matter of right; rather it is the edifice on which the liberty of the person, who has been accused of a crime rests and where a person, who had been accused of a crime had been acquitted by the Court below, a presumption follows the golden rule that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and on that basis the second presumption on the basis of the acquittal necessitates the Appellate Court to scrutinize the materials more carefully. Further, grant of leave to prosecute should not be as a matter of routine, but should be on just and equitable basis, when materials reveal that the Court below has not appreciated the materials in proper perspective.

8.Grant leave provided for under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C. is not an empty formality, but has been brought into the statute only to safeguard the interests of the persons accused of a crime, who have since been acquitted, as otherwise, they would be put through the rigours of continuous litigation even after their innocence has been accepted by the Courts below.

9.In the present case, the petitioner/ complainant claim that the the complainant and the accused are friends and the accused borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- on different dates from