A Full Bench (comprising three judges) of Madras HC rules that henceforth appeals against acquittal orders passed by Magistrates in cheque bounce cases must be filed only before the HC and not the Sessions Courts
by
Sekar Reporter
·
Published May 28, 2020
· Updated May 28, 2020
[5/28, 16:06] Sekarreporter 1: [5/28, 16:05] Sekarreporter 1: https://twitter.com/sekarreporter1/status/1265954829144227842?s=08 [5/28, 16:06] Sekarreporter 1: A Full Bench (comprising three judges) of Madras HC rules that henceforth appeals against acquittal orders passed by Magistrates in cheque bounce cases must be filed only before the HC and not the Sessions Courts @THChennai [5/28, 16:06] Sekarreporter 1: 🍁🙏🏾🍁 [5/28, 16:08] Sekarreporter 1: Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 1/88 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on : 04.03.2020 Dated : .05.2020 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice M.M.SUNDRESH The Honourable Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN and The Honourable Mr. Justice N.ANAND VENKATESH Criminal Appeal Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Criminal Revision Case Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 Criminal Appeal Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 K.Rajalingam … Appellant in both Appeals Vs. R.Suganthalakshmi … Respondent in both Appeals Criminal Revision Case Nos.494 of 2019 M.Venkataraman .. Petitioner Vs. D.G.Bhaskaran .. Respondent [5/28, 16:08] Sekarreporter 1: Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 2/88 Criminal Revision Case Nos.536 of 2019 Dharani .. Petitioner Vs. R.Prabhagaran .. Respondent Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as against the judgment dated 21.12.2018 made by the III Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in C.A.Nos.171 of 2018 and 172 of 2018. Criminal Revision Case No.536 of 2019 is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as against the judgment dated 02.01.2019 made in C.A.No.16 of 2016 by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee dismissing the complaint by judgmet dated 14.12.2015 in STC No.495 of 2012 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ponneri. For Appellant in : Mr.Sarath Chandran & Crl.A.Nos.89 & 90 T.M.Mano for of 2020 Mr.Govind Chandrasekar For Appellant in : Mr.Arun Anbumani Crl.R.C.Nos.494/2019 & Mr.Arya Raj For Appellant in : No appearance Crl.R.C.Nos.536/2019 [5/28, 16:08] Sekarreporter 1: Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 3/88 For Respondent in : Mr.S.Subramanian and Crl.R.C.No.494/2019 Mr.S.Sudharshan For Respondent in : No appearance Crl.R.C.No536/2019 : Mr.N.Jothi : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan,S.C., (Amicus) in MBA., : Mr.Vijayaraghavan : Mr.A.Thiagarajan,S.C., for MHA & WLA COMMON JUDGMENT M.M.SUNDRESH,J. The decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in S.Ganapathy V. N.Senthilvel ((2016) 4 CTC 119) was doubted by the learned single Judge while dealing with Criminal Revision Case Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 and Crl.A.SR.Nos.25084 and 25112 of 2019. The doubt raised is to the maintainability of the appeal by the complainant against an order of acquittal confirmed before the Court of Sessions invoking the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The incidental issue is on the [5/28, 16:10] Sekarreporter 1: Crl.A. Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Crl.R.C. Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019 87/88 the merits of the case and pass final orders. The parties had sufficient opportunity to put forth their case up to this Court and therefore, by no stretch, the same can be allowed to be reopened by virtue of this Judgement. Therefore, the way forward as a consequence of this judgement can be provided only for pending cases. The fall out of the present judgement rendering the earlier Full Bench Judgement of S.Ganapathi (Supra) as ‘per-incuriam’ and no longer a good law, has been lucidly explained and dealt with by the Author of the main judgement and therefore, there is no requirement to once again deal with the same in detail. I am in complete agreement with the answers given to the questions referred to us and the consequential directions issued. (N.A.V.,J) .05.2020 rka