IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 24th OF FEBRUARY, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4120/2020
Between:-
MADHUKAR PATLE S/O SHRI UKKAN LAL
PATLE , AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST VILLAGE NAVEGOWN P.S.
RAMPAYELI
DISTT.
BALAGHAT
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ASHOK AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. P.S.
RAMPAYELI BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
DHANENDRA
LILHARE
S/O
GHOOSALAL
LILHARE
,
AGED
ABOUT
40
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
BHOORGARH
P.S.KHERLANJI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3.
JAGANNATH
LILHARE
S/O
GHOOSALAL
LILHARE
,
AGED
ABOUT
52
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
BHOORGARH
P.S.KHERLANJI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
RETRAM LILHARE S/O GHOOSALAL LILHARE ,
AGED
ABOUT
37
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
BHOORGARH
P.S.KHERLANJI
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
5.
RAJESH LILHARE S/O JAGANNATH LILHARE ,
AGED
ABOUT
29
YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE
BHOORGARH
P.S.KHERLANJI
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI HARISH SHUKLA, PANEL LAWYER)
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE NO. 32020 of 2020
Between:-
1
Signed by: BIJU BABY
Signing time:
9/21/2022 6:18:20 PM
Signature Not Verified
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. POLICE
CHOUKI P.S. POLICE CHOUKI KHAIRLANJI P.S.
RAMPAYLI
DIST.
BALAGHAT
(MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI HARISH SHUKLA, PANEL LAWYER)
AND
1.
DHANENDRA LILHARE S/O SHRI DHUSALAL
LILHARE , AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILL.
BHOURGARH
THANA
KHAIRLANJI
DIST.
BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)
2.
JAGANNATH LILHARE S/O DHUSALAL LILHARE
,
AGED
ABOUT
52
YEARS, VILLAGE
BHOURGARH THANA KHAIRLANJI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3.
RATIRAM LILHARE S/O DHUSALAL LILHARE ,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, VILLAGE BHOURGARH
THANA KHAIRLANJI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4.
RAJESH LILHARE S/O JAGANNATH LILHARE ,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, VILLAGE BHOURGARH
THANA KHAIRLANJI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
T h e appeal
and
M.Cr.C.
coming
on
for
admission
and
I.A.No.11165/2020, respectively, this day, the court passed the following:
Advocate General,
1. As the both aforesaid Criminal Appeal No.4120/2020 and
M.Cr.C.No.32020/2020 arise of the same impugned judgment and order of
acquittal dated 04.12.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Varaseoni District- Balaghat whereby learned JMFC has acquitted the
respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 506-II of
IPC, this order shall govern the disposal of both the case.
2. Heard on I.A.No. 11165/2020 (M.Cr.C.No.32020/2020), an
2
application for condonation of delay. This appeal has been filed with a delay of
12 days.
3. Having regard to the order dated 23.03.2020 passed in Suo-Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No.(s).3/2020 in recognizance for extension of limitation by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, the delay caused in filing the appeal is ignored.
I.A.No.11165/2020 is disposed of accordingly.
372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided.- No appeal shall lie
from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by
this Code or by any other law for the time being in force;
Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against
any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a
lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall
lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of
conviction of such Court.
4. The language of the provisio to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is quite
clear. It is clear that there is no provision for any appeal to the High Court
against the orders/judgments of conviction and acquittal passed by the
Magistrate in a case lodged or registered on the basis of an FIR. The appeal
arising out of original judgments/orders of acquittal or of conviction for lesser
offence or imposing inadequate compensation passed by the Magistrate shall lie
to the Court of Session in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C..
As per Section 374(3), any person convicted on a trial held by a Metropolitan
Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or Magistrate of the First Class, or of
the Second Class or sentenced under Section 325, or in respect of whom an
order has been made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360 by any
Magistrate, the appeal lies to the Court of Session.
3
5. The provisions of Section 378(1&2) Cr.P.C. are unambiguous and no
leave to appeal can be granted to State Government to file an appeal before the
High Court against an order of acquittal passed by Magistrate in a cognizable
and non-bailable offence. Sections 378(1&2) read as under :
378. Appeal in case of acquittal.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-
sections (3) and (5)-
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in
respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by
any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order
of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision].
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been
investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 o f 1946 ), or by any other agency
empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than
this Code, the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub- section (3)
also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal-
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in
respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by
any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order
of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision].
6.