The Public Prosecutor has no power to suo motu file an appeal against an order of acquittal unless he is specifically directed by the State Government.

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. A question of far-reaching importance has cropped up in one of the appeals being Criminal Appeal No. 614-DB of 1980, part of these triple matters placed before us for disposal. The question is whether this Court can require the State Government or its Public Prosecutor, as the case may be, to establish whether an appeal against acquittal under S.378 (1) of the Cr. P. C. was filed under directions postulated therein.

2. Bare-facedly, four men stood trial under Ss.302/34 and 307/34, penal Code, before the Sessions Judge, Bhatinda. Out of them, Mohinder Singh (appellant in Cr. A. No. 335-SB of 1980) alone was convicted under S.304 Part-I, I. P. C. and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The remaining three namely Gurcharan Singh, Jagvinder Singh and Bharpur Singh were acquitted having been given the benefit of doubt. These three are respondents in the State appeal against the order of acquittal being Criminal Appeal No. 614-DB-A of 1980. Along with them is the fourth respondent Mohinder Singh, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 335-SB of 1980. Plainly, these appeals have arisen from the same judgment and had to be heard together.

3. The facts of the case would be taken note of later since the deck has to be cleared before they are put to sail. Another set of facts need first be taken note of.

4. The State appeal against the order of acquittal against the four accused was presented on 17-7-1980 in this Court. Prior thereto, Paramjit Singh son of Mander Singh lone of the deceased persons) had filed Criminal Revision No. 977 of 1980 in this Court against the order of acquittal. Both these matters came for hearing before the Motion Bench on Oct. 8, 1980. By that time it had come to notice that Mohinder Singh accused had filed Criminal Appeal No. 335-SB of 1980. Leave was granted and the State appeal was admitted. It was ordered to be heard with Cr. A. No. 335SB of 1980. So far as Criminal Revision No. 977 of 1980 was concerned, the Motion Bench passed the following order:-

"Leave under S.378 (3) of the Cr. P. C. has been allowed in the petition filed by the State. In view of this, the revision petition has become infructuous dismissed. "

5. While these appeals were pending, the accused moved Cr. M. No. 2045 of 1981 in the appeal against order of acquittal pointing out that the Public Prosecutor had not been directed to file an appeal against the three acquitted accused and thus the appeal was incompetent or invalid. It was prayed therein that the validity of the appeal against the accused-respondents other than Mohinder Singh be gone into and holding the appeal to be invalid, they be discharged from their bail bonds. Such prayer was obviously based on the material available on the file containing the recommendations of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda and the file containing the sanction/direction of the Government. On notice to the Advocate General, Punjab, the initial stance of the State appeared to be of claiming privilege but when the Advocate for the State was directed on 8th May, 1981 to give an affidavit, the original record was produced instead on 21-5-1981 and was ordered by the Bench to be placed on the judicial file. Then Cr. M. No. 2500 of 1981 was preferred by the acquitted accused claiming that the file was deficient inasmuch as it did not contain the recommedations of the District Magistrate, Bhatinda along with the proposed grounds of appeal and the recommendations of the public Prosecutor, Bhatinda. It was also prayed therein that the sanction/permission file had been tampered with and that in fact no directions from the State of Punjab to file an appeal against an order of acquittal against the three acquitted accused had been received in the office of the Advocate General, Punjab. On notice being issued on the application, the requisite file was replenished and was ordered to be placed on the record on 23-6-1981. The other points raised by the acquitted accused were ordered