The High Court dismissed the complainant's criminal appeal against the acquittal of the accused in a cheque bouncing case. The court held there was no perversity in the lower courts' acquittal as the trial court's finding remained sustainable.
Criminal Appeal dismissed as being devoid of merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.11.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
Crl.A.432 of 2012
S.Muthu ..Appellant/complainant
S.Ganesh Babu
Vs. ..Respondent/Accused
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgement passed in C.A.No.5 of 2007 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem dated 14.06.2007 to set aside the order passed in C.C.No.485 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem, dated 19.12.2006.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Jagadeesan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy
For the sake of convenience, the appellant and the respondent are referred to as complainant and accused.
“36.Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial Court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshalling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.”
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kmi
Crl.A.No.432 of 2012
vgII(co)
aa23/11/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the acquittal of the accused in the first appeal.
Whether the evidence establishes a perversity in the trial court's judgment or the first appellate court's order of acquittal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arulvelu and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Public Prosecutor and AnotherReferred¶19
Arulvelu and Another Vs. State Rep. by The Public Prosecutor and Another [(2009) 10 SCC 206] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S.Muthu
S.Ganesh Babu
P.N.Prakash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
P.N.Prakash
Parties & counsel
