Appellate authority against acquittal is mutually exclusive; the State cannot file appeals in cases investigated by central agencies. Furthermore, the victim’s right to appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is prospective, applicable only to orders passed after 31st December 2009.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Statutory interpretation - Mutually exclusive division of appellate authority between State and Central Governments - Interpretation of 'save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)' - The legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from an order of acquittal such that the competent authority in cases investigated by a central investigative agency is the Central Government, and the authority of the State Government is excluded. (Paras 18, 19)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 372 (Proviso) - Right of victim to appeal - Applicability - The substantive right conferred upon a victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal arises only in respect of orders passed after 31st December 2009. (Paras 27, 28)

(C) Limitation Act - Condonation of delay - Approach of Court - In cases involving grave criminal allegations, courts should adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, ensuring that matters are examined on merits rather than being dismissed on technical grounds. (Paras 30, 31)

Facts of the case:
A murder incident took place in 2003, leading to initial investigation by local police and subsequent investigation by a central agency. The trial court acquitted the accused in 2007. Appeals for leave to challenge the acquittal were filed by the State, the central agency, and the victim. The High Court dismissed the State's appeal for lack of maintainability due to the investigative agency involved and dismissed the victim's appeal for being retrospectively barred. The central agency's application was dismissed on the ground of delay.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the view that Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure creates a mutually exclusive jurisdiction for filing appeals against acquittals. It confirmed that the victim's right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 is prospective and not applicable to orders of acquittal passed before 31st December 2009. However, the court ruled that the High Court erred in rejecting the central agency's appeal on grounds of delay, given the gravity of the offences involved.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the State could appeal an acquittal in a case investigated by a central agency, whether the victim’s right to appeal is retrospective, and whether the High Court should have condoned the delay in the central agency's filing of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the statutory scheme of Section 378 requires that appeals against acquittals in cases investigated by central investigative agencies must be filed only by the Central Government. The victim's right to appeal is not available for orders passed prior to the enactment of the proviso to Section 372. Furthermore, in cases of serious crimes, procedural delays should be condoned to ensure that the merits of the case are heard, avoiding rejection on technicalities.

Result: Criminal appeal by the central agency allowed; appeals by the State and the victim dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case history and factual matrix of the corruption/murder trial and appeal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. parties' contentions regarding maintainability of appeals and the applicability of the lalu prasad yadav precedent. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. reaffirmation of lalu prasad yadav regarding exclusive authority of agencies in filing appeals vs. potential exceptions. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. non-retrospective application of section 372 crpc for victim appeals. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
5. condonation of delay favoring substantive justice in serious criminal charges. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)

J U D G M E N T

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. These matters have been placed before the three-Judge Bench in terms of the order dated 12th February, 2020 wherein a Bench of two Judges of this Court took note of the submission of the learned counsel representing the State of Chhattisgarh expressing a doubt on the correctness of the view taken by this Court in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. /em>¹(2010) 5 SCC 1. (Three-Judge Bench decision). The said order reads as below:

“Learned counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh seeks to doubt the judgment of this court in Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. – (2010) 5 SCC 1 which is of a Three Judges Bench.

We are thus, of the view that it may be appropriate that the matters be placed before a Three Judges’ Bench itself so as to avoid further duplication of the hearing.

The matters be thus, placed before Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.

Registry to take necessary steps.”

4. The State of Chhattisgarh, the Central Bureau of Investigation²Hereinafter, being referred to as “CBI”. and Shri Satish Jaggi-de-facto complainant³Hereinafter, being referred to as “de-facto-complainant”. are before this Court in these four appeals for assailing-:

a. The final order dated 18th August, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur⁴Hereinafter, being referred to as “High Court”. in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 137 of 2008.

b. The final order dated 12th September, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 495 of 2011.

c. The final order dated 19th September, 2011, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 434 of 2007.

5. These criminal miscellaneous petitions were preferred before the High Court assailing the common judgment and order dated 31st May, 2007 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur⁵Hereinafter, being referred to as “trial Court”., in Sessions Trial Nos. 343 of 2003 and 329 of 2005, whereby the trial Court, while convicting 28 accused persons, acquitted the accused Amit Aishwarya Jogi⁶Hereinafter, being referred to as “respondent-Amit Jogi”.. Both these cases were registered pursuant to an incident of violence and murder which took place within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Moudhapara, District Raipur on 4th June, 2003.

BRIEF FACTS

6. The respondent-Amit Jogi, is the son of Shri Ajit Jogi, the serving Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh at the time of the incident.

7. It is alleged that one Shri Ramavatar Jaggi, leader of the National Congress Party was murdered by unknown assailants on 4th June, 2003. Initially, an FIR pertaining to the said incident came to be lodged by V.K. Pandey, the then Station House Officer and Town Inspector of Police Station, Moudhapara under Sections 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁷Hereinafter, being referred to as “IPC”., being FIR No. 104 of 2003. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the local police submitted a chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁸Hereinafter, being referred to as “CrPC”., against Vinod Singh alias Badal, Shyam Sunder alias Anand Sharma, Jamvant alias Babu, Avinash Singh alias Lallan, and Vishwanath

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 111287

Cases Referred (2)