STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus ANIL KUMAR @ BADKA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 726 · Decided: 29-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
726
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
v.
ANIL KUMAR @ BADKA & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1094 of 2018)
AUGUST 29, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.378(3) – Application
seeking leave to file appeal – Parameters which the High Court
should keep in mind for deciding the application, discussed – In
the instant case, the trial court and the appellate court ordered
acquittal of the respondent – State filed application seeking leave
to file appeal challenging the acquittal – High Court  declined to
grant leave and rejected the application – State’s appeal – Held:
High Court in its order neither set out the facts nor the submission
of the parties nor the findings nor the reason as to why the leave to
file appeal was declined to the appellant – Thus, it was a clear case
of non-application of mind to the case by the High Court – Impugned
order set aside and matter remitted to High Court for deciding the
application for grant of leave to appeal afresh on merits in
accordance with law keeping in view the law laid down in Sujay
Mangesh case – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.363, 366, 376, and 120B.
State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar
(2008) 9 SCC 475 : [2008] 13 SCR 750 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 13 SCR 750
      relied on
Para 9
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :  Criminal Appeal
No. 1094 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.09.2014 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Government Appeal No. 3317 of 2014.
Garvesh  Kabra, Vikash Chaudhary, Ms. Mona K. Rajwanshi,
B. P. Gupta, Ram Naresh, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Saurabh Chopra,
Shekhar Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
  [2018] 10 S.C.R. 726
726
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
727
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the State of U.P. against the final judgment
and order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Government Appeal No.3317 of 2014 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”)  and
affirmed the judgment dated 31.05.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No.3, Kannauj acquitting the accused-respondents in S.T.
No.204 of 2012.
3. 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.
4. The respondents (accused) were prosecuted and tried for
commission of  offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)
pursuant to lodging of FIR No. 139/2012 in Police Station  Gursahay
Ganj, sub-District Sadar, District Kannauj in Sessions Trial Case No.
204 of 2012 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No.3,
Kannauj. The prosecution adduced evidence in support of their case.
5. By judgment dated 31.05.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge
on appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution acquitted the
respondents (accused) of the charge of offences punishable under
Sections 363, 366, 376, 120-B IPC.
6. The State of U.P., felt aggrieved by the respondents’ acquittal,
filed an application for leave to appeal before the High Court under
Section 378 (3) of the Code.
7. 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 in
this Court.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State has made only  one
submission.  According to him, the High Court while dismissing the
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. ANIL KUMAR @ BADKA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
728
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
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 should have granted leave to appeal
for further probing into the case by the Appellate Court. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of
Maharashtra vs. Sujay Man

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.