Position of Law – Case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr, 2010 INSC 188 : [2010] 4 SCR 334 – Whether a different view required:
Held: No reason to take a different view. [Para 22] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 341, 427, 120-B r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959 – ss.25, 27 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Murder of a National Congress Party leader – The criminal miscellaneous petitions were preferred before the High Court assailing the common judgment and order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Special Judge in Sessions Trial, whereby the trial Court, while convicting 28 accused persons, acquitted the accused (respondent-AJ) – The High Court relied upon the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. to hold that the leave to appeal application filed by the State was not maintainable in a case investigated by the CBI – Correctness:
Held: On a threadbare perusal of the three-Judge Bench judgment in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr., applying the principles of statutory interpretation, the Bench held that the legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from a judgment and order of acquittal inasmuch as the competent authority to appeal from a judgment and order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in sub-Section (2) of s.378 of the CrPC is the Central Government and the authority of the State Government in relation to such cases has been excluded – Indisputably, applying the ratio of the above judgment, the leave to appeal application filed by the State of Chhattisgarh would not be maintainable. [Paras 19, 20] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal against acquittal – Murder of a National Congress Party leader – Respondent-AJ acquitted – The CBI also assailed the judgment and order dated 31.05.2007, passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent-AJ, albeit with some delay – The application seeking condonation of delay and consequently, the CBI’s application seeking leave to appeal also stand rejected by the High Court vide order dated 12.09.2011:
Held: In the present case, this Court feels that ends of justice will be served by condoning the delay occasioned in filing of the application seeking leave to appeal by the CBI and requiring the High Court to consider the said application filed by the CBI, on its own merits – Such a course of action would ensure that the challenge to the judgment of acquittal would be examined on merits by the High Court instead of a technical rejection – Though it is true that the CBI filed an application seeking leave to appeal after a significant delay of 1373 days, but it is equally true that the charges against the respondent-AJ were very grave, involving a conspiracy to murder a member of a rival political party – The judgment of acquittal was under challenge at the instance of the State Government and the de-facto-complainant and thus, the proceedings were still alive – Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the High Court ought to have adopted a more liberal and pragmatic approach in dealing with CBI’s application seeking condonation of delay and should have examined application seeking leave to appeal applicable on its merits – The delay occasioned in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal by the CBI against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent-AJ is hereby condoned. [Paras 26, 30, 33]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Proviso to s.372 – Appeal against acquittal – Murder of a National Congress Party leader – Respondent-AJ acquitted – De-facto complainant sought to prefer an appeal under the proviso to s.372 of the CrPC – The High Court held the de-facto-complainant’s application seeking to prefer an appeal under the proviso to s.372 of the CrPC, to be not maintainable:
Held: This Court does not find any fault in the view taken by the High Court on the aspect of maintainability of the de-facto-complainant’s application filed under proviso to s.372 of the CrPC – Needless to say, that the judgment and order of acquittal in this case was rendered on 31.05.2007, whereas, the enabling provision i.e., proviso to s.372 of the CrPC, which gives a substantive right to the victim to file an appeal against judgment and order of acquittal came into effect from 31.12.2009 – Thus, undeniably, as on the date of the judgment and order of acquittal i.e. 31.05.2007, there was no provision in the statute book which permitted the de-factocomplainant to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the trial Court by approaching the High Court through a victim’s appeal – Thus, Criminal Appeal filed by the de-factocomplainant fails as being devoid of merit. [Paras 27, 29]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.