Special Leave Petition filed by a complainant to prosecute an appeal challenging the acquittal of a respondent in a cheque-bounce case arising from alleged payment for securing medical seats. The Single Judge granted leave to prosecute the appeal.
Leave to prosecute the appeal against acquittal was granted; Registry directed to number the appeal.
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.
C rl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in
Crl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.10840 of 2024
Crl.A . SR.No.10840 of 202 4
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
This petition is filed seeking to grant special leave to prosecute the
above appeal against the acquittal of the respondent.
2.The petitioner as complainant had filed a private complaint against
the respondent for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act in C.C.No.5445 of 2020. The trial Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2023, convicted the accused and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent filed an appeal in
C.A.No.105 of 2023 before the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 01.12.2023, allowed the appeal, acquitted the respondent, against which, the present leave
petition and appeal.
1/4
Crl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.10840 of 2024
3.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the
respondent, who is an Associate Professor at Sri Lakshmi Narayana Institute of Medical Sciences, Puducherry, promised that he has wide contacts and influence with the management of his college as well the other Medical
Colleges in Puducherry and he would secure medical seat to the petitioner’s
son in NRI quota or during mopping-up for which, he received an amount of
Rs.50,00,000/- and thereafter he could neither secure seat nor return money.
In discharge of the liability, he issued two cheques of Rs.25,00,000/- each.
The respondent had taken a stand that he is only an Associate Professor and
took coaching class to the petitioner’s son and further he had only contact
with petitioner’s brother-in-law, Ravi, who was examined as PW2 and the petitioner is not aware about any transaction, filed the complaint. Further the
trial Court had given a finding that whether the petitioner has got resources to
lend money and payment of money is not through bank transaction. Further
2/4
Crl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.10840 of 2024
getting Medical Seat by paying money is illegal. Hence, it cannot be
construed as legally enforceable debt and dismissed the complaint.
4.The learned counsel further submitted that payment of capitation fee
for NRI and during mopping up after counselling is over, is an accepted
procedure, hence, PW2, her brother-in-law contacted the respondent and
through him seats sought to be allotted, which cannot be stated to be illegal. The respondent not denied the issuance of cheque and signature. Further, he
failed to sent any reply. He neither examined any witness nor probabilised his
defence but the trial Court on its own gave a finding, which is not proper.
5.Finding reason and force in the submission of the learned counsel
for petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant leave. Accordingly, leave is
granted.
19.03.2024
rsi
Note: Registry is directed to number the appeal, if it is otherwise in order.
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
3/4
Crl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in Crl.A.SR.No.10840 of 2024
rsi
C rl.O.P.No.6307 of 2024 in Crl.A . SR.No.10840 of 202 4
19.03.2024
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Special Leave Petition against the acquittal in a cheque-bounce case involving alleged payment for illegal medical quotas deserves to be prosecuted.
Whether the lower appellate Court erred in finding that the debt was not legally enforceable due to illegal payment towards medical seats.
Whether the petitioner has made out a sufficient case to challenge the acquittal of the respondent.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.Nirmal Kumar
The Respondent
M. Nirmal Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
