Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK vs MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"] ["ANDREW HENG & ANOR vs CHONG KOK WOOI - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"].In judicial review contexts, the threshold for granting leave is a significant procedural hurdle, and failure to meet it results in dismissal, underscoring its mandatory character ["
DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK vs MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"] ["DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK vs MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"] ["SINOHYDRO CORPORATION (M) SDN BHD vs KAJ DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (ENCLS 55 68 69 70 & 71) - High Court Malaya Kuala Lumpur
"].Challenging or Challenging Order of Acquittal - Main points and insights:
Analysis and Conclusion:- The prevailing legal position indicates that leave, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is often a mandatory procedural requirement, and orders granting or refusing leave are critical junctures that significantly impact the progression of cases ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2043"] ["
DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK vs MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"].- Once an order of acquittal is passed, it generally enjoys finality, and challenging it requires adherence to specific procedural avenues, with courts emphasizing the finality and legal sanctity of such judgments ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 934"].- Therefore, challenging an order of acquittal is not straightforward and is typically permissible only on procedural or legal grounds, not merely on merits, reinforcing its challenging nature as limited and often difficult ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36212"].References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2043"]- ["
WONG CHENG HOUNG vs HOE POH LIN & ANOR - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"]- ["DATO SERI MOHD NAJIB TUN HJ ABD RAZAK vs MENTERI DALAM NEGERI & ORS - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"]- ["ANDREW HENG & ANOR vs CHONG KOK WOOI - Court of Appeal Putrajaya
"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 934"]- ["2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36212"]- ["2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 10985"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37286"]
In the realm of criminal justice, an by a can feel like a final roadblock for the prosecution or complainant seeking justice. But what if compelling grounds exist to question that verdict? A common query arises: Whether Leave is Mandatory Challenging Order of Acquital? This question centers on , which governs appeals against orders by the state or complainant.
This blog post delves into the nuances of this provision, drawing from established judicial principles. We'll examine if is an absolute requirement, the 's role, and insights from related case law. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Under , the state can appeal an without prior leave. However, for a complainant or any other person (under ), an appeal lies only with the leave of the as per Section 378(3). But is this leave mandatory in the sense that it must always be granted, or does the hold discretion?
The short answer: Leave is a prerequisite to file the appeal, but its grant is not automatic or mandatory. The exercises discretion after evaluating the case. This balance prevents frivolous appeals while allowing meritorious challenges. 2013 1 Supreme 737
Judicial precedents outline clear guidelines for High Courts:
Application of Mind is Essential: The must apply its mind and consider whether a has been made out or arguable points have been raised before granting or refusing leave. Dismissing leave petitions cursorily, merely stating the 's was not , is insufficient. 2013 1 Supreme 737
Arguable Points Warrant Leave: If the petition raises arguable issues or necessitates deeper scrutiny and , leave must be granted, and the appeal decided on merits. 2013 1 Supreme 737
Reasons Must be Provided: Even brief reasons are required to show the has properly considered the matter. undermine judicial scrutiny. 2013 1 Supreme 737 2008 6 Supreme 657
These principles ensure fairness, protecting against mechanical rejections while upholding the 's presumption.
Leave under Section 378(3) is discretionary, not mandatory. The assesses if interference is warranted, given acquittals' favored status. However, this discretion isn't unfettered:
Courts cannot refuse leave solely because the isn't . Instead, evaluate if arguable points exist. 2013 1 Supreme 737
In practice, if prima facie errors in evidence appreciation or legal misapplication appear, leave follows. This aligns with directives emphasizing reasoned orders.
For instance, in cases where trial courts overlook key evidence, High Courts typically grant leave for full adjudication. 2013 1 Supreme 737
The theme of leave recurs across civil and criminal law, often highlighting discretion over mandatoriness. These parallels reinforce that courts reserve judgment calls:
Civil Procedure Amendments: Under , amendments require proving due diligence. Absent this jurisdictional fact, courts lack authority—mandatory in form but conditional. 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 311 The noted, Order 6, Rule 17, is couched in a mandatory form, yet tied to preconditions. 2011 0 Supreme(Gau) 311
Winding-Up Proceedings: Leave is mandatory before actions against a wound-up company or liquidator to protect the process. Courts examine if proceedings disrupt administration, as in cases reducing unreasonable fees post-leave.
Leave of Court is a mandatory requirement for an action or proceedings against a company that has been wound up.
Suit Withdrawals: Under , withdrawal with liberty to sue afresh demands court satisfaction on preconditions. False plaints bar such leave, emphasizing judicial gatekeeping. 2010 0 Supreme(Cal) 1391
Public Suits: mandates prior leave for suits against trusts, rejecting plaints without it under . 2009 0 Supreme(Del) 965
Criminal Appeals and Reviews: In challenges, like cases, appellate courts uphold acquittals absent perversity, mirroring leave scrutiny. 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4170 Echoing, if evolution of the evidence and the findings recorded by does not suffer from any illegality or perversity... should not disturb order of . 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 4170
These cases illustrate: Where statutes say leave, courts interpret as discretionary yet principled, avoiding automaticity to prevent abuse.
If facing an you wish to challenge:
File Leave Petition Promptly: Approach the with detailed grounds, evidence re-appreciation needs, and arguable points.
Anticipate Scrutiny: Highlight ; avoid mere disagreement with trial findings.
Seek Reasons if Refused: Challenge non-speaking refusals via review or higher courts.
Timeline Awareness: Appeals must align with post-leave grant.
Relatedly, in police history sheets post-, periodic reviews are mandated to avoid stigma—directing police action within weeks. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60034 This underscores post- remedies' breadth. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60034
Cursory Dismissals: High Courts err by not engaging merits. 2013 1 Supreme 737
Perversity Threshold: Not the sole bar; arguable issues suffice.
Brief but Effective Reasons: Even succinct explanations validate decisions. 2008 6 Supreme 657
In rent default suits, courts strike defenses cautiously under , weighing evidence liberty—paralleling appeals' caution. 2023 0 Supreme(All) 556
an under Section 378(3) CrPC is a gateway, not a guaranteed pass. High Courts wield discretion but must apply mind, identify arguable points, and furnish reasons. This framework upholds justice without flooding appeals.
Key Takeaways:- Leave is required but not mandatorily granted; discretion applies. 2013 1 Supreme 737- Demand reasoned orders to ensure fairness. 2008 6 Supreme 657- Success hinges on prima facie merits, not just non-perversity.- Broader law echoes: Leave provisions balance access and oversight.
Familiarize with these principles for strategic filings. For tailored guidance, engage a criminal law expert. Stay informed—justice often turns on procedural nuance.
#AcquittalAppeal, #CrPC378, #CriminalLaw
The learned Judge allowed the application seeking leave on 04.03.2008. Challenging the order dated 04.03.2008, the fourth defendant has filed Application No. 365 of 2010 in Tr.CS.No.282 of 2011 (C.S. No. 272 of 2008), which was dismissed by the learned Judge on 04.07.2018. ... (x) By order dated 04.03.2008, this Court granted leave in favour of the plaintiff to institute a separate suit on the same cause of action challenging the sale deed dated 14.06.2007 executed in....
(4) In deciding whether or not the leave shall be granted, the Court shall take into account whether:- (a) the complainant is acting in good faith; and (b) it appears prima facie to be in the best interest of the company that the application for leave ... Findings Of This Court [21] Whether 30 days' notice in writing is a mandatory requirement under s 348 of the Companies Act 2016 . ... We are of the view that the giving of the notice as stipulated under s 348 is a condition pre....
Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and judgement and order of acquital passed by the learned Special Judge, Negotiable Instrument Act, Surat in Criminal Case No. ... This appeal is filed under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “N.I.Act”) by the learned Special Judge, Negotiable ... This Court finds no infirmity or illegalit....
Saharanpur dismissing the SCC Revision No. 132 of 2022, which was filed by the petitioner-defendant challenging the order dated 14.11.2022. ... In other words, the Courts have leaned in favour of not assigning a mandatory character to such provisions of drastic consequence and have held that a discretion is indeed reserved with the Court concerned whether to penalise the tenant or not. ... The defence was struck off in that matter with the Trial Court and the High Court taking the said provisions of Order#HL_EN....
Out these five cases, the FIR in Crime No.84 of 2018 was ended in acquital and the case in Crime No.921 of 2022 was quashed by this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.22741 of 2023, dated 22.12.2023. ... Therefore, the respondent police is directed to review the history sheet pending against the petitioner, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8.With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. ... 7.Therefore, this Court directs the respondent police to consider the case of the petitioner and take a decision....
CA ), the defendants submit that leave of Court is a mandatory requirement for an action or proceedings against a company that has been wound up. ... There are two categories of claim that the Court should examine, namely: (a) where a company has initiated a proceeding in a Court of law whether before or after winding up order, no leave of the winding up Court should be neededCourt states the questions of law as follows: (1) Whether the prior leave of the winding up C....
CA ), the defendants submit that leave of Court is a mandatory requirement for an action or proceedings against a company that has been wound up. ... At paragraph [10] of the judgment, the Court states the questions of law as follows: (1) Whether the prior leave of the winding up Court is required in order for legal proceedings to be commenced against a Court appointed liquidator in ... There are two categories of claim that the Court should examined namely: (a) where a company has initiated a proceedin....
Once the leave to defend was granted conditionally and the conditions were not complied with the Trial Court rightly passed the decree as the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3(6) CPC are mandatory which is evident from the use of the word 'shall' by the Legislature. ... Appellant had a remedy of challenging the orders but waited for the decree to be passed and the order dated 21.05.2019 having attained finality cannot be challenged at this stage. ... The question that thus arises before this Court is #HL_ST....
05.01.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order sbn Page 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP. ... matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial in S.C.C.No.13 of 2013, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (P.C.R), Thanjavur, had been ended in an acquital
(v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order i.e. gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. ... SCC p. 384) "(iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in place of the ....
7. The State in the Appeal has raised the several grounds challenging the reasoning given by the trial court for the acquital.
Unless the jurisdictional fact, as envisaged in the proviso to order 6, Rule17, Code of Civil Procedure is found to be existing, the court will have no jurisdiction at all to allow the amendment of the plaint. Challenging the said order Plaintiff filed special leave petition before the Supreme Court, allowing the appeal of the Plaintiff-appellant, the Supreme Court held as thus, Order 6, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure is couched in a mandatory form. An appeal was preferred before the High Court against the order of rejection, whereupon High Court allowed documents to be f....
Leave has been sought for permitting the defendant to file an appeal for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. It is thus made clear that the order which is passed herein, will not affect the defendants right to challenge that part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum. In my view no such leave is necessary for challenging this part of the impugned order before the appropriate forum.
Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on : AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1633 Vidyodaya Trsut v. Mohan Prasad R and Ors. holding that if a suit is brought by an individual as representative of the public for the vindication of public right, the court has to go beyond the relief and having regard .to the capacity in which the plaintiff has sued and the purpose for which the suit is brought which is to be deciphered from the averments made in the plaint. The Supreme Court was dealing with the issue whether the leave under Section 92 is a pre condition or a condition precedent for the instit....
The present Special Leave Petition has been preferred challenging the aforesaid orders. He moved an application for being enlarged on bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge (POTA) on 7.7.2003 and the appeal preferred by him against the said order was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 2.8.2003.
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
