SATISH KUMAR Vs. JUGAL KISHOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been preferred under Sec. 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter 'CR.P.C.') seeking grant of leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal dtd. 7/9/2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa in a case stemming from complaint dtd. 25/8/2017 filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter 'NI Act').

(2.) Tersely put, the facts of the case are that the respondent had borrowed Rs.4,00,000.00 from the applicant on 16/7/2015 at an interest of 24% p.a. The transaction was done via RTGS on 16/7/2015. It was also agreed that the rate of interest will decrease from 24% to 18% p.a. w.e.f. 1/4/2016. In order to discharge his liability, the respondent issued a cheque bearing No.029160 dtd. 12/7/2017 for the amount of Rs.5,80,000.00, drawn on ICICI Bank, Mansa. However, on presentation for encashment, the same was dishonoured vide memo dtd. 17/7/2017 with the remarks- funds insufficient and account dormant. Consequently, the applicantappellant served a legal notice dtd. 20/7/2017 on the respondent. Since the respondent failed to make the requisite payment in the stipulated time, complaint (supra) was filed against him. After assessing all the material available on the record, the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent vide judgment dtd. 7/9/2018. - impact of the decision in celestium financial case

(3.) There has been an ongoing debate whether the right of the victim to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case would fall under Sec. 372 or Sec. 378(4) of Cr.P.C. The same was recently put to rest by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A. Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208.