LexMANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYA versus MAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1433 : 2025 INSC 282 Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1048 of 2017) 27 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration What are the parameters that a High Court should keep in mind while granting or refusing a leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. Headnotes† Criminal Law – Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Leave to appeal against acquittal order: Held: High Court should primarily see whether prima facie case is made out based on the materials on record while considering application for grant of leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C and thereafter should adjudicate the appeal on merits. [Paras 12-13] High Court to apply judicial mind to discern whether arguable points have been raised – No reappreciation of evidence to be done at the stage of Section 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Held: Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar (2008) 9 SCC 475 wherein it was held that while it cannot be said that all applications seeking grant of appeal must be allowed, the High Court also does not reappreciate the evidence at this stage to ascertain whether the judgment appealed against is perverse or not – It was further held that in cases where leave is refused, High Court must consider all materials on record including witness testimonies and pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind by High Court so that its order is free from any illegality – At the same time if materials on record reveal any need for reappreciation of evidence to decipher viability of the order sought to be challenged, leave must be granted and appeal must be heard on merits. [Para 7] 1434 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Right to appeal – Life and liberty – Human fallibility: Held: Court relied on Sita Ram v. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 656 which held that at least one right to appeal is imperative so that the guarantee of life and liberty is ensured because humans, including judges, are not infallible – It also held that such a right of appeal ensures that before any irreversible deprivation of life or liberty is done, a given case is relooked into both factually and legally to ensure fairness. Case Law Cited State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [2008] 13 SCR 750 : (2008) 9 SCC 475; Sita Ram v. State of U.P. [1979] 2 SCR 1085 : (1979) 2 SCC 656 – relied on. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 List of Keywords Section 378(3) CrPC; Leave to appeal; Appeal against acquittal order; Circumstantial evidence; Prima facie case; Perverse; Universal application; Application of mind; Relevant material; Speaking order; Reappreciation of evidence; Life and liberty; Human infallibility; Remand; Section 372 CrPC. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1048 of 2017 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2013 of the High Court of Bombay in CRLA No. 207 of 2013 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv., C. George Thomas, Ms. Kaarunya Lakshmi, Nakul Patwardhan, Ansh Mittal. Advs. for the Respondents: R. Basant, Sanjay Kharde, Sr. Advs., Satyajit A. Desai, Pravin V. Khandare, Shubham Singh, Siddharth Gautam, Abhinav K. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1435 Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr. Mutyalwar, Sachin Singh, Ananya Thapliyal, Naman Vashishtha, Akash Rajeev, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. This appeal is at the instance of the original first informant brother of the deceased, seeking to challenge the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.207 of 2013, dated 22nd of August 2013, by which the High Court in an appeal filed by the State against the judgment and order of acquittal, declined to grant leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as, “Cr.P.C.”). 2. We are conscious of the fact that the acquittal appeal was at the instance of the State. As leave came to be declined, the State could have come before us by way of an appeal. However, the State has though fit not to question the order passed by the High Court, declining to grant leave and in such circumstances, it is the brother of the deceased (original first informant) who has thought fit to q
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.