IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.6686 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.14904 of 2024 M.Mohmmed Nazar ...Petitioner Vs.

R.Neelamegam ...Respondent Prayer in Crl.O.P.No.6686 of 2024: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 378(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure, pleased to grant leave to file an criminal appeal against the order dated 14.02.2024 in C.C.No.1340 of 2018 on the file of the V Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. Prayer in Crl.A.SR.No.14904 of 2024: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the acquittal judgment passed in C.C.No.1340 of 2018 dated 14.02.2024 on the file of the V Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan

ORDER

This Criminal origninal petition has been filed seeking to grant special leave to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned judgment passed by the V Fast Track Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, in C.C.No.1340 of 2018 dated 14.02.2024.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, the respondent/accussed is the Managing Partner of a Firm called M/s. Meenakshi Tanners and during the course of business dealings, the respondent borrowed money for his business purpose, amounting to Rs.50,000/-, whereas the same stood outstanding. When a demand was put forth by the petitioner before the respondent in respect of the outstanding amount, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.135644 dated 01.07.2013 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Dindigul Begumpur Branch. On presentation of the cheque for collection, the same was dishonoured due to “Funds insufficient”. Thereby, the petitioner issued a legal notice, dated 12.09.2013, for which, a reply notice dated 26.09.2013 was also received from the respondent, denying the transaction as well as the issuance of the case cheque to the petitioner. Therefore, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner as against the respondent for an offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Trial Court in CC.No.1340 of 2018. After adjudication, the trial Court, without appreciating the above said facts has passed the impugned order, acquitting the respondent. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking grant of special leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 14.02.2024 in CC.No.1340 of 2018.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the cheque was issued by the respondent/accused, which stood dishonoured and the respondent has not disputed his signature in the cheque, which clearly shows that there is a legally enforceable debt, which has not been discharged by the respondent. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, in order to disprove the case of the petitioner no documents were marked on the respondent side. However, all those facts have not been properly considered by the court below while passing the impugned order acquitting the respondent and, therefore, interference is warranted with the findings recorded by the court below.

4. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material documents palced on record.

6. It is the consistent ratio laid down that grant of leave is not a matter of right; rather it is the edifice on which the liberty of the person, who has seen 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 the prosecution should not be as a matter of routine, but should be on just and equitable basis, when materials re