TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal against the judgment dated 13.05.2025 in Registration No. CC/734/2023 on the file of the ASJ-03, Special Judge (Companies Act), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, by which the respondent/ accused no. 2 has been acquitted of the various offences charged against him. 2. The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent on the ground that, in view of the acquittal of the respondent/accused, the principle of double presumption of innocence operates in his favour. It was, therefore, contended that leave to appeal ought not to be granted as a matter of course or merely upon a prima facie consideration, but only after the Court has considered the merits of the case. 2.1. It is further contended that the leave petition has not be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te to refer to the dictum of the Apex Court in Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja, 2025 KHC, 6204; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 451. In the said case, the original first informant, namely, the brother of the deceased, sought to challenge the order passed by the High Court of Bombay, in an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal, declining to grant leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. The trial court acquitted the first respondent therein of the charge of murder. The State preferred an appeal against the judgment of acquittal before the High Court. The High Court briefly discussed the evidence on record and concluded that there was no infirmity or perversity in the judgment of acquittal by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ught by the State should not be granted and the order of acquittal recorded by the trial court should not be disturbed. Where there is application of mind by the appellate court and the reasons given in brief support such view, the order of the Court cannot be said to be illegal or objectionable. At the same time, however, if arguable points have been raised, if the material on record discloses deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation, review or reconsideration of evidence, the appellate court must grant leave as sought for and decide the appeal on merits. 5.1. In the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court also refers to the dictum in Sita Ram & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1979) 2 SCC 656, wherein it was held thus: "31..... A Single....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 7. Further, it is contended that the application filed under Section 419(3) of the BNSS seeking leave to appeal is barred by the statutorily prescribed period of six months contemplated under Section 419(5) of the BNSS. A perusal of the court records, however, reveal that the impugned judgment was pronounced by the trial court on 13.05.2025. The application for obtaining the certified copy was thereafter made on 30.10.2025, and the certified copy was prepared and delivered on 23.12.2025. Eventually, the petition was, in fact, filed on 30.12.2025, resulting in a total period of 232 days from the date of pronouncement of the impugned judgment, i.e., 13.05.2025. However, the record reveals that 54 days were consumed in processing and ob....