LexSUBHASH CHAND versus STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 191 SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) (Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2013 ) JANUARY 8, 2013 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.378 (as amended A B by Act 25 of 2005) - Complaint case filed by State I State Authority - Appeal from order of acquittal of the Magistrate - C Whether would lie to the Sessions Court uls.378(1 )(a) CrPC or to the High Court uls.378(4) CrPC -Held: A complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court - In the instant case the complaint alleging offences punishable ul D s.16(1)(1A) r/w s. 7 of the PFA Act and the PFA Rules was filed against the appellant complainant Local Health Authority through Delhi Administration but the appellant was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate - The complainant could challenge the order of acquittal by filing an application for E special leave to appeal in the High Court and not in the Sessions Court - Therefore, impugned order holding that the case was not governed by s.378(4) CrPC quashed and set aside - Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - s. 16(1 )(1 A) r/w s. 7 - Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, dismissed petition filed by the appellant holding that an appeal filed by the State against an order of acquittal shall F lie to the Sessions Court under Section 378(1) CrPC and G not under Section 378(4) CrPC to the High Court. The question which arose for consideration in the instant appeal was whether in a complaint case, an 191 H 192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 1 S.C.R. A appeal from an order of acquittal of the Magistrate would lie to the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) CrPC or to the High Court under Section 378(4) CrPC. Allowing the appeal, the Court B HELD:1.1. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to have a look at Section 378 CrPC prior to its amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and Section 378 amended thereby. [Para 10] [202-C] c 1.2. Under earlier un-amended Section 378(1) CrPC, the State Government coul-d, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal 0 passed by the Court of Session in revision. Section 378(2) covered cases where order of acquittal was passed in any case in which the offence had. been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 or by any E other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than the Code. In such cases, the Central Government could also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal. Section 378(3) stated that appeals under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 378 of F the Code could not be entertained except with the leave of the High Court. Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code provided for orders of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon complaint. According to this provision, if on an application made to it by the complainant, the High G Court grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant could present such an appeal to the High Court. Sub-section (5) of Section 378 of the Code provided for a period of limitation. Sub-section (6) of Section 378 of the Code stated that if in any case, the H application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special SUBHASH CHAND v. STATE (DELHI 193 . ADMINISTRATION) leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no A appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub- sections (1) or (2). Thus, if the High Court refused to grant special leave to appeal to the complainant, no appeal from that order of acquittal could be filed by the State or the agency contemplated in Section 378(2). It is clear from B these provisions that earlier an appeal against an order of acquittal could only lie to the High Court. Sub-section (4) was aimed at giving finality to the orders of acquittal. [Para 11]. [203-G-H; 204-A-F] 1.3. Post the amendment of Section 378 CrPC, by Act C 25 of 2005, on analysis of Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that the State Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal against an or
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.