Cheque bounce case acquittals can be challenged before district courts from July 7: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court's Registrar (Judicial) has issued a notification intimating lawyers and litigants that the High Court would not entertain petitions to grant leave, to file appeals, from Monday (July 7, 2025) in accordance with a judicial order passed Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan.
While hearing two such leave petitions on June 30, 2025, the judge pointed out the Supreme Court in Celestium Financial versus A. Gnanasekaran (2025) had ruled victims in cheque bounce cases were entitled to file appeals as a matter of right without having to seek the leave of the High Court.
The top court had pointed out the procedure of filing appeals, against acquittal orders passed by judicial magistrates, in the High Court, that too after obtaining its leave, had to be followed only in cases where the private complainants were not the victims in a criminal case.
'A person convicted of a crime has the right to prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a matter of right and not being subjected to any conditions. Similarly, a victim of a crime, whatever be the nature of the crime, unconditionally must have a right to prefer an appeal,' the Supreme Court had said.
However, since the top court had not mentioned whether its decision should be given effect retrospectively or prospectively, Justice Ilanthiraiyan decided to give effect to it from July 7, 2025. 'The district courts are directed to entertain the appeals... from July 7, 2025 onwards,' he ordered.
The judge also directed the High Court Registry to circulate his order to all district courts in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
30 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC issues notice to state govt on RCB plea challenging CAT order
BENGALURU: High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the state government on a petition filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL), which owns the RCB team, challenging an order passed by the Bengaluru Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). In its July 1, order, the CAT had observed that prima facie, RCB was responsible for the massive and unregulated crowd outside M Chinnaswamy Stadium, which led to a stampede on June 4, resulting in the deaths of 11 people. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice T M Nadaf issued the notice after hearing the petition, in which RCB contended that the tribunal had wrongly placed the entire responsibility for the incident on the franchise. RCB further argued that the CAT acted beyond the scope of its jurisdiction and in a colourable exercise of its powers. The tribunal, RCSPL said, should have limited itself to examining the validity of the suspension of Vikash Kumar Vikash, ACP (West), who had challenged the disciplinary action taken against him. Despite this, the CAT not only returned adverse findings against RCB, without it being a party to the case, but also did so without proper appreciation of the available evidence, the petition stated.
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
‘Irreplaceable loss': Govt, SSC bat for ‘tainted' teachers, argue against barring them from fresh hiring
The West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) on Wednesday appealed in the Calcutta High Court arguing that candidates identified as ineligible have already faced punishment and if they are barred from participating in the application process, it would cause them irreplaceable loss. The Calcutta High Court on Monday had ordered the WBSSC to rectify its latest notification for the recruitment of over 35,000 school staff, directing it to bar 'identified tainted' candidates of the 2016 selection process from applying this year. It had also directed that if any tainted candidate had applied in order to offer his or her candidature under the recruitment notification, the application would stand cancelled. During the hearing, in front of the division bench of Justice Soumen Sen and Smita Das De, senior counsel Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for SSC, submitted, 'After the delivery of the Supreme Court (SC) judgement on April 3, the service of both the tainted and untainted were terminated. Then after the April 17 modification, the untainted were allowed to remain in service till December 31. Even the SC judgement does not say that tainted candidates will not be allowed to participate. SC gave age relaxation for the untainted candidates and the physically handicapped candidates.' According to Banerjee, the SSC had submitted a report based on the CBI investigation into rank jumping and OMR issues, and the Supreme Court had directed tainted candidates to refund their salaries. Banerjee stated that in the fresh selection process, age relaxation is provided to untainted and disabled candidates only. However, tainted and unsuccessful candidates were not barred from participating in the examination. Following this, the Division Bench observed, 'But the persons with so much of fraud, so much of misdemeanour, misconduct will be permitted.' Banerjee said that denying them participation would amount to double punishment and submitted, 'Penalty was imposed on them for committing the offence, they were asked to pay back their salary and their jobs taken away. Now the question arises, will they get double punishment and punishment for life. Doesn't it violate the Constitution? No criminal charges have been proved against these 'tainted' candidates, stringent punishment has been imposed on them. If they are not allowed to participate it will be double punishment.' Questioning the Commission's locus in arguing this point, Justice Soumen Sen said, 'What locus has the commission have to argue this point? The person aggrieved must make such appeal. Commission is not the person aggrieved.' 'It is the legislative power of the state to secure the public interest. I have received the application for all. The state's authority is to provide for all. CBI will run an investigation for 7, 10,12 years and in that time the public rights will be affected,' Banerjee submitted. According to the SSC, filing the application does not guarantee appointment, and even if they are appointed they can be dismissed if convicted. While 2.6 lakh applications have been received, only 188 tainted candidates have applied, the SSC said. Meanwhile, the Advocate General for the State, Kishore Dutta said, that 'The SC has given the harshest of punishment, but was careful enough not to debar them from future employment. Fundamental rights cannot be curtailed. Can fundamental rights be taken away?' According to the Court, since the tainted candidates were asked to return their salaries, that experience cannot be counted: 'They have been asked to return their salaries that means that we cannot say that is part of qualifying service. A person who is beneficiary of fraud that period of service cannot be taken as qualifying service. Qualifying service has various factors when complicity is established then this cannot be treated as qualifying service.' According to the Advocate General, 'Whatever SC wanted to take it has been taken away. If SC wanted to deprive the tainted candidate of their service then they would have said it.' The court will hear the matter on Thursday. In April, the SC had cancelled the appointment of nearly 26,000 teaching and non-teaching staff in state-run and-aided institutions after finding that the selection process was tainted.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
Excise policy case: HC seeks ED's response on Kejriwal's plea challenging summons
New Delhi: on Wednesday sought the 's response on a plea by former CM challenging the summons issued to him in a money laundering case related to the alleged excise policy scam in the capital. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Justice Ravinder Dudeja asked ED to file the counter affidavit within six weeks. During the hearing, ED raised a preliminary objection over the maintainability of the petition, but the high court asked the agency to raise everything, including the preliminary objection, in its reply and listed the matter for hearing on Sept 10. Kejriwal challenged a special court order dated Sept 17, 2024, by which his revision petition against a March 7, 2024, order of a magisterial court summoning him was dismissed. Besides, the ex-CM also challenged a sessions court order which upheld an Oct 24 order of a magistrate refusing to transfer his case to another court. Even in this case, the high court issued notice on the second petition and asked ED to file its response within six weeks. It listed the matter for the same date while ED said the special court order was challenged after a delay of almost 10 months. Last year in June, Kejriwal was granted bail by a trial court in the money laundering case, but it was later stayed by the high court on the ED's plea. However, a month later, Supreme Court granted interim bail to the AAP convener while referring to a larger bench three questions on the aspect of "need and necessity of arrest" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The ED's money laundering case stems from an FIR lodged by Central Bureau of Investigation after Delhi lieutenant governor VK Saxena recommended a probe into the alleged irregularities in the implementation of the 2021-22 Delhi excise policy. According to ED and CBI, irregularities were allegedly committed while modifying the excise policy, and undue favours were extended to the licence holders. Delhi govt implemented the policy on Nov 17, 2021 and scrapped it by the end of Sept 2022 amid allegations of corruption.
