The presumption of innocence remains until proven otherwise, and no grounds justified overturning the acquittal in this case.

O R D E R

Assailing the order of acquittal dated 27.02.2024 passed in S.T.C.No.2791 of 2022 by the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking leave to file appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner / complainant that the petitioner /

complainant and the respondent / accused are known to each other and they are running the business related to aluminum powder coating. The complainant required vacant land for expanding his busniess, the accused gave her land for lease, for which, she obtained a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant and obtained loan for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 24% per annum on 01.12.2018. The complainant pledged his wife jewels and gave the said amount. Once again, the complainant by obtaining loan from Bajaj Finance for sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and gave Rs.2,23,029/- to the accused with an assurance that she will pay EMI. However, the accused has not paid even a single EMI till date. The complainant has also sourced through his friends of Rs.7,50,000/- towards disposal of debts by the accused. Thereafter only, the complainant came to know that the accused has no land in her name, pursuant to which, the complainant has asked the accused to return back the money. The panchayat was held with respect to the dispute, following which the accused gave a cheque bearing No.000043 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 05.01.2022. When it was presented for collection, the same was returned on 24.01.2022 as "insufficient funds". Thereby, the complainant issued legal notice to the accused on 02.02.2022 and the same was received by the accused on 04.02.2022, for which, the accused gave reply on 14.02.2022, however, the accused has not repaid the amount. Hence, the above complaint.

3. Upon issuance of summons, the respondent appeared and was served with the copies of the documents and as the respondent pleaded not guilty, the Court below proceeded with the trial of the case. At the time of trial, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Neither any oral evidence nor any documents were marked by the respondent. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, the Court below found the respondent not guilty of the offence and, accordingly, acquitted the respondent, aggrieved by which, the present petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the presumption u/s 139 falls heavily on the respondent and the respondent having not rebutted the presumption by placing any material to show the reason as to why the cheque was given, necessarily it has to be held against the respondent. However, without properly appreciating the above, the Court below has acquitted the respondent, which deserves interference at the hands of this Court.

5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. 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