DWARKA DAS AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 150 · Decided: 13-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
DWARKA DAS AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
NOVEMBER 13, 2002 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ. ] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973--Section 374 (2)-Criminal Appellate 
Jurisdiction-Issuance of directions by High Court to State Government to file 
C appeal against acquittal-Sustainability o/-Held: methodology of filing appeal 
lies with State Government and High Court has no authority of issuing such 
directions-Thus High court has not only exceded its jurisdiction but 
transgressed all limits of jurisdiction which is neither fair nor reasonable-
Hence not sustainable. 
D 
E 
F 
In this appeal, the question that arose before this Court was whether 
High Court while exercising the criminal appellate jurisdiction under 
Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. could issue directions to State Government to file 
an appeal against persons acquitted by Sessions Judge. 
Appellant contended that High Court could not have issued 
directions to State Government to file appeal against persons acquitted 
and that High Court has to be within the limits and boundaries of law. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 State Government is capable of managing its .own affairs 
in a manner conducive to the people at large and State itself has got its 
own Law Officer/Officers to advise in its legal affairs. State Government 
in the contextual facts did not seek any opinion from High Court as to 
the methodology of dealing with the matter. The methodology of filing an 
G appeal lies with the State and the High Court has no authority or 
jurisdiction to issue such a directive. Thus, the mandate issued by High 
Court is wholly without any jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction and 
hem;e cannot be accepted. (156-C-D] 
1.2. It is not for High Court but for the Government to decide as to 
H whether there is any social evil, as in this case country liquor. It is the 
150 
DWARKA DASv. STATE OF HARYANA [BANERJEE.!.] 
151 
Government's responsibility to proceed with the matter further, not for A 
the High Court to advise. High Court has not only exceeded its jurisdiction 
but has transgressed all limits of jurisdiction. This is neither fair nor 
reasonable and thus cannot be sustained. 1157-EI 
Hariram and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 120001 9 SCC 136; Ramesh 
Babula/ Doshi v. State a/Gujarat, 11996] 9 SCC 225; Tota Singh and Anr. B 
v. State of Pzmjab, 119871 2 SCC 529 and Mohinder Singh and Ors. v, State 
of Punjab and Anr., 119851 I SCC 342, referred to, 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
1143 of 2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.5.2001 of the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court in Crl. A. No. 418 of 2000. 
U.R. Lalit, K.B. Rohtagi, Ms. Aparna Rohtagi Jain and Mahesh Kasana 
for the Appellants. 
J.P. Dhanda, K.P. Singh, Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda and Dhan Singh Nagar, 
for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
D 
BANERJEE, J. Leave granted. While there cannot be any denial of the E 
factum that the power and authority to appraise the evidence in an appeal, 
either against acquittal or conviction stands out to be very comprehensive 
and wide, but if two views are reasonably possible, on the state of evidence: 
one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, then and in 
that event, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with an order F 
of acquittal, merely because it feels that it, sitting as a trial court, would have 
taken the other view. While reappreciating the evidence, the rule of prudence 
requires that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration· to 
the views of the trial Judge. But if the judgment of the Sessions Judge was 
absolutely perverse, legally erroneous and based on a wrong appreciation of 
the evidence, then it would be just and proper for the High Court to reverse G 
the judgment of acquittal, recorded by the Sessions Judge, as otherwise, there 
would be gross miscarriage of justice so said Pattanaik, J. in Hariram and 
Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, [2000] 9 SCC 136. Two earlier decisions of this 
Court ought also to be noticed in this context, namely, Ramesh Babula/ 
Doshi v. State a/Gujarat, [1996] 9 SCC 225, wherein in paragraph 7 of the H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Report this Court observed : 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
"7. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to mention that the 
entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal was 
patently wrong for it did not at all address itself to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.