2 HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA Crl. L. P. No.4 of 2025 in Crl. A. No.12 of 2025 Indian Overseas Bank ---- Petitioner(s) Versus Sri Suman Roy & Anr. ----Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Soumen Saha, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, P.P. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT Order 11/08/2025 Learned Counsel, Mr. Soumen Saha appears on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. Learned P.P. Mr. Raju Datta appears on behalf of the State-respondent. This petition is preferred under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. for granting special leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2025 delivered by Learned Addl. CJM, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with case No.NI/325/2014 under Section 138 of NI Act. By the said judgment and order, Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge of NI Act and challenging that judgment, an appeal is preferred along with this petition for granting special leave to appeal. We have already condoned the delay. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioner-appellant drawn the attention of the Court that the judgment and order of the Learned Trial Court suffers from perversity as because Learned Trial Court failed to interpret the exact legal provisions and came to the observation that the 2 petitioner is a company and concerned Chief Manager was not duly authorized to depose on behalf of the appellant-Bank and as such misinterpreting the provisions of law, Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused from the charge of the case. It was further submitted that the respondent-accused took loan from the bank and he also made some payments by installment. But as some of the installments fallen due, so, he deposited one cheque which later on found to be dishonoured and after due process of law the case was filed. But the Learned Trial Court at the time of delivery of the judgment failed to appreciate the evidence on record and came to a wrong observation that the Manager who appeared on behalf of the Bank was not duly authorized to depose and as such acquitted the accused from the charge of the NI Act. So, Learned Counsel urged for allowing this leave petition and to admit the appeal. On the other hand, Learned P.P. submitted that the leave may be granted and the case may be taken up for hearing. Inspite of service of notice, the private-respondent did not turn up. So, considering all, I am satisfied with the submission made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears that there are sufficient materials to proceed with the connected appeal. Accordingly, the special leave petition stands allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Deepshikha MOUMITA DATTA Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA Date: 2025.08.12 10:30:35 -07'00'