GOPALA KRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A defacto complainant is before this Court, seeking leave to prefer another appeal against the judgment of a Sessions Court rendered in an appeal filed by him, challenging the acquittal of accused by the trial court. The Registry of this Court noted a defect that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court against the judgment of acquittal of the trial court and hence a second criminal appeal by the same appellant is not maintainable. Petitioner questioned the correctness of the said defect, and hence the matter was placed before this Court, for consideration.

(2.) This criminal leave petition has been filed by the defacto complainant in C.C. No.678 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrates Court, Sulthan Bathery under Sec. 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNSS'), seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the concurrent findings of acquittal of the accused for the offences alleged under Sec. 420 and 415 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC, Sec. 17 and 18 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Sec. 4 r/w Sec. 76(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982. The appeal filed by the petitioner herein, as Crl. Appeal No.78 of 2022 on the files of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, was dismissed thereby affirming the judgment of acquittal of the trial court. Thus, after the trial court acquitted the accused, the defacto complainant preferred an appeal which ended in dismissal and through this leave petition he seeks permission to prefer yet another appeal. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that his contentions be heard and considering the importance of the issue, this Court appointed Adv. Krishnapriya Sreekumar, as Amicus Curiae to assist the court in this matter.

(3.) I have heard Sri. T. P. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Adv. Krishnapriya Sreekumar, the learned Amicus Curiae, the latter of whom filed a detailed note as well, in support of her submissions.