Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378(3) – Leave to prefer appeal before High Court – Trial court acquitted accused against the charges u/ss.143, 147, 323 r/w. ss.149, 325 of IPC and s.135 of Bombay Police Act – State’s application u/s.378(3) before the High Court was rejected – Revision petition by complainant against the acquittal order was also rejected by the High Court – On appeal, held: The reason for rejection of application u/s.378(3) was contrary to the evidence on record – Material on record indicate a prima facie case to prefer appeal against the judgment of the trial court – It is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal also in view of the fact that a cross-complaint relating to the same incident is pending in appeal before the High Court – Impugned order of the High Court rejecting application u/s.378(3) set aside – No reason to reject the revision petition filed by the complainant – Accordingly, matter remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the criminal revision on its own merit – Penal Code 1860 – ss.143, 147,
323 r/w. 149, 325 – Bombay Police Act – s. 135.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The reason for rejecting the application for leave to appeal ran contrary to evidence on record. In any event, having perused the material on record, prima facie, a case is made out by the State for grant of leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.05.2005, passed by the trial Court. [Para 5][1032-F]
1.2 There was also a cross complaint by other faction in the village relating to same date incident on which basis a case was registered and the accused therein were tried and convicted for offences under Section 143, 147, 307, 324, 427, 504, 395, 325, 337, 452 read with 149, 325 IPC. Appeal preferred against that judgment is pending before the High Court. As the two groups in the village filed cross complaints and appeal arising out of one is pending before the High Court. It is a fit case for grant of leave. [Para 6][1032-G-H; 1033-A]
1.3 For the aforesaid reason this appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 13.06.2008, rejecting leave to appeal u/s.378(3) of Cr.P.C., is set aside. Consequently, application filed before the High Court stands allowed. The criminal appeal preferred by the State challenging the acquittal in the trial Court shall be taken on file. [Para 7][1033-B]
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 : [2008] 13 SCR 750 – referred to.
2.1 This Court is of the view that as the impugned order of the High Court in Criminal Application u/s.378(3) of Cr.P.C. has already been set aside in the appeal filed by the State, there is no reason to reject the revision filed by the complainant. [Para 11][1033-F]
2.2 Accordingly, the impugned order of the High Court in Criminal revision application is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration, to decide the criminal revision on its own merit. [Para 12][1033-F-G]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.