Appeal
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 (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 Investigation and Shri Satish Jaggi-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 Bilaspur 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), Raipur, 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 Jogi6. 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.
Discussion and conclusion
17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have carefully gone through the impugned orders. We have also given our respectful consideration to the three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra).
I. Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2014
18. On a threadbare perusal of the three-Judge Bench judgment in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra), we find that this Court extensively considered and discussed the provisions of law involved in the matter i.e., Sections 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898/Section 378 of the CrPC, 1973. The Bench has elaborately drawn distinction in the two enabling provisions i.e., 378(1) and 378(2) of the CrPC in the following manner:
“……………………”
Matter of appeal from a judgment and order of acquittal by Central Government and the authority of State Government
19. The entire existing case law on the subject was exhaustively referred to and analyzed. Thereafter, 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 Section 378 of the CrPC is the Central Government and the authority of the State Government in relation to such cases has been excluded. The relevant observations made in para 54 in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra) are quoted hereinbelow:
“54. In our opinion, the legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from an order of acquittal inasmuch as the competent authority to appeal from an order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in subsection (2) is the Central Government and the authority of the State Government in relation to such cases has been excluded…”
20. Indisputably, applying the ratio of the above judgment, the leave to appeal application filed by the State of Chhattisgarh would not be maintainable.
21. The core question which requires adjudication in these matters is whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra) lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger bench.
22. Having examined the statutory framework and after mulling over the arguments advanced at bar, we see no reason to take a different view. However, there is one aspect of the controversy which may require a deeper probe in a suitable case. In para 37 of the judgment in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra), this Court gave some indication that if a different view was to be taken, it would imply that, irrespective of the complaint not being lodged by the State Government or its officers, the investigation not being done by its police establishment, and the State Government having no role in the criminal proceedings, and where all steps from launching of the prosecution until its logical end were undertaken by the Delhi Police Special Establishment, yet the State Government may file an appeal against a judgment and order of acquittal under Section 378(1) of the CrPC.
Initially investigation was by State police and subsequently State transferred the investigation to CBI
23. Apparently, these observations could give rise to an argument that, in cases like the present one, where at the initial stage, the investigation was undertaken by the State Police and subsequently, the State Government thought fit to assign further investigation to the CBI, perhaps the State Government may stake a right to challenge the judgment and order of acquittal on its own, irrespective of the CBI not pursuing such a course of action.
No necessary to take different view from the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav
24. However, we do not see any reason to enter into the controversy nor are we persuaded to take a different view for the reason that in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. (supra), the CBI also supported the view taken by the High Court and chose not to file an appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court. However, in the present case, the distinguishing feature is that the CBI has also filed an application seeking leave to appeal against acquittal of the respondent-Amit Jogi.
Who can prefer the appeal against acquittal regarding the case initially registered by the state police later transferred to CBI investigation is left open to decide in a suitable case
25. In this background, we are of the view that the question as to whether the State Government can independently file an appeal against acquittal of the accused in a case which was initially registered by the local police and later tried on the chargesheet filed by the CBI, may be examined and deliberated in a suitable case involving the following situations:
(a) the complaint was lodged by the State Government or its officers;
(b) investigation was partly done by State Police;
(c) prosecution was commenced at the instance of the State Government;
(d) the State Government has a stake in the criminal proceedings; and
(e) the jurisdiction of the CBI had been invoked at the instance of the State Government.
II. Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No. 7331 of 2011 – No provision for victim to prefer appeal during 2007
27. We also do 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 Section 372 of the CrPC9. Needless to say, that the judgment and order of acquittal in this case was rendered on 31st May, 2007, whereas, the enabling provision i.e., proviso to Section 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 31st December, 2009.
After quoting Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through LRs v. State of Karnataka and Ors – (2019) 2 SCC 752=AIR 2018 SC 5206 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
29. Thus, undeniably, as on the date of the judgment and order of acquittal i.e. 31st May, 2007, there was no provision in the statute book which permitted the de-facto-complainant 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 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 7331 of 2011 filed by the de-facto-complainant fails as being devoid of merit.
Judgment principally involved
- Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr – Citation: (2010) 5 SCC 1- Principle Applied: This judgment established the principle that a State Government has no right to file an appeal against an acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC in cases that were investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
- Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through LRs v. State of Karnataka and Ors – Citation: (2019) 2 SCC 752 (or AIR 2018 SC 5206) – Principle Applied: This judgment affirmed that the victim’s right to prefer an appeal against an acquittal, as introduced by the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (effective from December 31, 2009), does not apply retrospectively to judgments of acquittal passed before that date.
The Acts and Sections involved
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 173(2)
- Section 378 (Sub-sections 1, 2, 3, and 5)
- Section 372 (Proviso)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 302 (Murder)
- Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy)
- Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention)
- Section 307 (Attempt to Murder)
- Section 341 (Wrongful Restraint)
- Section 427 (Mischief causing damage)
- Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
- Section 193 (Punishment for false evidence)
- Section 218 (Public servant framing incorrect record or writing)
- Arms Act, 1959
- Sections 25 and 27
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (referred to as “1946 Act”)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
- Section 417 (Predecessor to CrPC Section 378)
Party
State of Chhattisgarh (Appellant) and Amit Aishwarya Jogi (Respondent) - Criminal Appeal No(s). 1927 of 2014 - 2025 INSC 1285 - November 06, 2025 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta.
