STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus FIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 17-05-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 694 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
v. 
FIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 750 of2006) 
MAY 17,2016 
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 378(3) - Parameters to 
be kept in mind by the High Court while deciding application for 
C 
grant of Leave to appeal made u/s.378 (3) - Discussed - Jn the 
instant case, respondent was prosecuted for commission of offence 
of murder of 11 years old girl - Trial Court acquitted the respondent 
giving him benefit of doubt- State's application u/s.378(3) for grant 
of leave declined by High Court without giving reasons - Held: It 
was a clear case of non-application of mind - Matter remanded to 
D High Court for reconsideration - Penal Code, 1860 - s.302. 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: It was a clear case of total non application of mind 
to the case by the Judges because the order impugned neither 
E sets out the facts nor the submissions of the parties nor the 
findings and nor the reasons as to why the leave to file appeal is 
declined to the appellant. The casual approach of the High Court 
in deciding the application, is against the law. The case is 
remanded to the High Court for deciding the application made 
F 
by the appellant ~or grant of leave to appeal afresh on merits in 
accordance with law. [Paras 13 and 14] [698-A, CJ 
G 
H 
State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar 
2008 (13) SCR 750 : (2008) 9 SCC 475 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (13) SCR 750 
referred to 
Paras 9, 13 
. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:Criminal Appeal No. 
750 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.2005 of the High Court 
694 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. FIROZ KHAN @ARIF KHAN 
695 
ofJudicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D. B. Criminal Leave to Appeal 
A 
No. 227 of2005. 
Puneet Parihar, Milind Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. I. This appeal is filed by the 
State ofRajasthan against the final judgment and order dated 28.10.2005 
passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. 
Criminal LeavetoAppeal No. 227 of2005 whereby the Division Bench 
of the High Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant herein 
seeking leave to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") against 
the judgment dated 13.08.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer 
in Sessions Trial Case No. 48 of2002. 
2. Keeping in view the short point involved in the appeal, it is not 
necessary to state the facts in detail except few to appreciate the 
grievance of the appellant. 
3. The respondent (accused) was prosecuted and tried for 
commission of an offence of murder of one Liley Khan aged around 11 
years under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 
referred to as "IPC") pursuant to lodging of FIR No 44/2002 in Police 
Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer in Sessions Trial Case No. 48 of 
2002 in the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer. The 
prosecution adduced evidence in support of their case. 
4. By judgment dated 13.8.2004, the Session Judge on appreciating 
the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the respondent of 
the charge of murder by giving him benefit of doubt. 
· 5. The State ofRajasthan, felt aggrieved ofrespondent's acquittal, 
filed application for leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 
378 (3) of the Code. 
.. 
6. By impugned order,. the High Court declined to grant leave and 
. accordingly rejected the application made by the State; It is against this 
· order, the State has filed this appeal by way of special .leave petition. 
1. NotJce of lodgment of petition of appeal was served on the 
r~spondent but despite service of notice, the respondent has not appeared. 
8. Heard learned counsel for the State ofRajasthan. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
696 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has made only one 
submission. According to him, the High Court while dismissing the 
application for leave to appeal did not assign any reason and hence the 
impugned order is rendered bad in law. It was his submission that there 
were several discrepancies and errors in the judgment of the Sessions 
Judge against which the leave to appeal was sought and, therefore, this 
was a fit case where the High Court s
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.