IMPORTANT POINT
Casual approach of the High Court cannot be approved.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by the State of U.P. against the final judgment and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No.3317 of 2014 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein seeking leave to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) and affirmed the judgment dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Kannauj acquitting the accused-respondents in S.T. No.204 of 2012.

3) Keeping in view the short point involved in the appeal, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail except few to appreciate the grievance of the appellant.

4) The respondents (accused) were prosecuted and tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) pursuant to lodging of FIR No. 139/2012 in Police Station Gursahay Ganj, sub-District Sadar, District Kannauj in Sessions Trial Case No. 204 of 2012 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Kannauj. The prosecution adduced evidence in support of their case.

5) By judgment dated 31.05.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge on appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the respondents (accused) of the charge of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC.

6) The State of U.P., felt aggrieved by the respondents' acquittal, filed an application for leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378 (3) of the Code.

7) By impugned order, the High Court declined to grant leave and accordingly rejected the application made by the State. It is against this order, the State has filed this appeal by way of special leave petition in this Court.

8) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9) Learned counsel for the appellant-State has made only one submission. According to him, the High Court while dismissing the application for leave to appeal did not assign any reason and hence the impugned order is rendered bad in law. It was his submission that there were several discrepancies and errors in the judgment of the Sessions Judge against which the leave to appeal was sought and, therefore, this was a fit case where the High Court should have granted leave to appeal for further probing into the case by the Appellate Court. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, (2008) 9 SCC 475.

10) We are inclined to agree in part with the submission urged by the learned counsel for the appellant.

11) The question as to how the application for grant of leave to appeal made under Section 378 (3) of the Code should be decided by the High Court and what are the parameters which the High Court should keep in mind remains no more res integra.

This issue was examined by this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (supra). Justice C.K. Thakker speaking for the Bench held in paras 19, 20, 21 and 24 as under:

“19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under Sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code.

20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arg