MAHESH KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 1320 of 2011. The Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad on 14.2.2013 and the respondent-accused has been acquitted from the charges under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against this judgment the present appeal has been preferred. We have heard counsel for the appellant at length. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in fact the present appellant is seeking leave to prefer appeal under sub-section 4 of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure and If the same is granted acquittal appeal will be argued at length. Counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the present appellant is a complainant, who has preferred a complaint case before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore, upon acquittal present appeal has been preferred along with the prayer for grant of special leave to appeal.

(2.) We have heard counsel appearing for the State i.e. respondent No. 1, who has raised preliminary objections that the present appellant has efficacious remedy available under the Proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 1, APP that the appellant is not remedy less. Whenever efficacious alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, special leave to appeal may not be granted by this Court. Hence this appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case we see no reasons to grant special leave to appeal to this appellant against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhanbad dated 14.2.2013 In C.P. Case No. 1320 of 2011, mainly for the following facts and reasons:-