SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 938

1998(7) Supreme 208
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee & S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.
Jagbir & Anr. -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 1996
Decided on 3-9-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Ajay Siwach Advocate for Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent : R.S. Sodhi, Advocate.

Important Point
High Court was not justified in entertaining the appeal of complainant against acquittal as cognizance was taken by trial Court on Police Report u/s. 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 190(1)(b), 378 and 401 -Cognizance taken on police report-Trial ended in an acquittal of all accused - Complainant filed appeal against acquittal-Whether correct? (No)-It was state alone who could file appeal u/s. 378 Cr.P.C.-Complainant could file only revision u/s. 401 - Appeal allowed-High Court to treat Memo of appeal as for revision qua the two appellants and dispose of them in accordance with law. (Para 2)

       

Order

Consequent upon a charge sheet (challan) submitted by the police and a committal enquiry that followed, the two appellants and others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. The trial ended in an acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby, Birbal, the complainant, filed an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. In disposing of the appeal the High Court set aside the acquittal of the two appellants and convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC, while upholding the acquittal of others. Aggrieved by the order of the conviction and sentence recorded against them the appellants filed this appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C.

2. Since the appeal must succeed on a pure question of law, we need not go into the facts of the case. Admittedly, the cognizance in the instant case was taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Resultantly, it was the State alone who could file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. after obtaining leave under sub-section (3) thereof - and not the complainant who could only file an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore was not at all justified in entertaining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial Court. The High Court will now treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complain­ant as an application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, qua the two appellants only, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellants who are in jail be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case.

(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed accordingly.

**********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top