Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Guma Tech Marine Services, a partnership firm, filed an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court, Girgaon, Mumbai, acquitting respondent No. 2 (original accused No. 3) of offences under Sections 408 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant was the original complainant. The complaint alleged that original accused No. 1, who was working as General Manager with the appellant firm, in connivance with respondent No. 2, who was the Manager of State Bank of India, Hughes Road Branch, fraudulently opened a bank account in the name of the appellant firm and encashed a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- received from a client. It was further alleged that respondent No. 2 aided accused No. 1 in preparing false and forged documents to open the account. The Trial Court acquitted the accused. The High Court heard the parties and perused the record. The Court noted that the appellant did not examine the investigating officer or the handwriting expert, and did not produce the original cheque or the account opening form. The Court found that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and the judgment of acquittal was not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, holding that no prima facie case was made out for grant of leave.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal - Leave to Appeal - Sections 408, 467 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The appellant-complainant sought leave to appeal against acquittal of respondent-accused (bank manager) for offences of criminal breach of trust and forgery. The High Court held that the Trial Court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. The complainant failed to examine the investigating officer and the handwriting expert, and did not produce the original cheque or account opening form. Hence, no prima facie case was made out for grant of leave. (Paras 4-6) B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Non-examination of Material Witnesses - Sections 408, 467 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The complainant did not examine the investigating officer or the handwriting expert, and failed to produce the original cheque and account opening form. The High Court held that these omissions were fatal to the prosecution case and the Trial Court correctly acquitted the accused. (Paras 5-6) C) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court reiterated that an appeal against acquittal can only be entertained if the judgment is perverse or unreasonable. In the absence of any such infirmity, leave to appeal cannot be granted. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is perverse and warrants interference by the High Court in an application for leave to appeal.
Final Decision
Application for Leave to Appeal dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
- Leave to Appeal requires strong prima facie case
- Burden of proof on complainant to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt
