Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
JOHNSON JOHN
State of Kerala – Appellant
Versus
Vayalombran Shantha – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the State of Kerala under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C against the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 18 (c) and 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (for short 'the Act').
2. In the complaint filed under Section 32 of the Act, it is alleged that the first accused is the proprietress and the licensee in respect of M/s.Athul Agencies, and the second accused is the competent person of the said establishment authorised to deal in drugs specified in Schedule 'C' & 'C1' except those requiring cold storage facilities and that when the complainant Drugs Inspector inspected the business premises on 02-04-2004, it was found that in violation of the conditions of the licence, the accused stored the drug Tetanus Toxide IP and thereby committed the offence as aforesaid.
3. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused argued that the appeal is yet to be admitted for want of leave as contemplated under Sub clause 3 of 378 Cr.P.C and the appellant/State of Kerala has not filed any application seeking leave. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that even though no separate le
Public Prosecutor must have explicit governmental direction to appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory mandate for the State Government to issue a direction for filing an appeal against an order of acquittal, as mandated under Section 3....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that appeals in complaint cases can only be entertained after obtaining special leave to appeal from the High Court, as per the provisions of secti....
The court clarified that appeals by the State or Central Government are governed by a 90-day limitation period, and sufficient cause for delay must be demonstrated for condonation.
An appellate court may only overturn a trial court's acquittal if findings are perverse, ignoring relevant evidence or reliant on unsustainable conclusions, with the presumption of innocence strongly....
Appeal against acquittal – State Appeal – Public Prosecutor without leave granted by High Court cannot file a revision petition and get over the provisions of S. 378(1)(b) and 378(3) Cr.P.C.
In appeals against acquittal, the presumption of innocence is reinforced, requiring clear justification for interference unless the lower court's judgment is perverse or inconsistent with evidence.
A complainant as a victim under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has the right to appeal against acquittal without prior leave from the court.
A victim can appeal an acquittal in a criminal complaint case only to the High Court under S.378(4) Cr.P.C., while a complainant must seek court permission for appeal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
