LexTHE STATE OF GUJARAT versus RATILAL LALJIBHAI TANDOL AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.... THE STATE OF GUJARAT A v. RATILAL LAUIBHAI TANDOL AND ANR. AUGUST 20, 1997 _.. B l [G.N. RAY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/Law Officers Rules .of 1939. -· S.378/R.50-Circular No. Cri/Misc./5/78/24289/A2 dated 23.7.1979 is- sued by Legal Department, Government of Gujarat-District Magistrate re- c quired to report in regard to filing of appeal against acquittaf-Delay in filing ·f the appeal-High Court directing that proposal for filing appeal should not be processed through District Magistrate and making observations indicating liability of Public Prosecutor in the event of delay-Observations impugned in appeal before this Court-Held, observations made by High Court are D modified-Directions given by High Court regarding liability of Public Prosecutor in the event of delay attributable to him are deleted-Guidelines indicated in order to avoid delay in filing such appeals--Govemment may ; issue appropriate directions consistent with the guidelines indicated in this ....;. order-Practice and Procedure-Administration of Criminal justice-Con- stitution of India 1950-Article 136. E CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 780 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the Guprat High Court in Misc. Crl. Application No. 2941/95 in Crl. A. No. 375 of 1995. F S .K. D holakia, Ms. H. Wahi and Ms. Sunita Hazariaka for the Appellant. :i4 Sushi! Kumar (AC.) for the Respondent. -( G The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard Mr. S.K. Dholakia, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-State of Gujarat and Mr. Sushi! Kumar, the learned senior H 473 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A counsel appearing as amicus curiae to assist the Court in this matter. B Certain observations made by the Gujarat High Court in disposmg of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 2941of95 in Criminal Appeal No. 375/95 (The State of Gujarat v. Ratilal Laljibhai Tandol and Anr. are impugned in this appeal by the State of Gujarat. It has been submitted by Mr. Dholakia that although on the proposal initiated by the Public Prosecutor for preferring appeal against order of acquittal the State Government takes the final. decision, the State Government has felt that the opinion of the District Magistrate being in overall charge of the district is necessary for taking appropriate decision C by State Government. Our attention has been drawn to the circular dated 23rd July, 1979 issued by the Legal Department of the Government of Gujarat being Circular No. Cri/Misc./5!78/24289/A2. It has been indicated in the said circular that the District Magistrate who is holding an important position in the District can reflect on several circumstances indicated in D the circular in his report so that the Government will have the benefit of the experience and knowledge of the person who is likely to be most conversant with the local condition and circumstances, which facts could not be shown or suggested by the Pubic Prosecutor or the Assistant Public E Prosecutor. Mr. Dholakia has submitted that in view of such perception of the State Government, it was decided that the proposal to prefer appeal against the order of acquittal should be routed through the District Magistrate. In the impugned observations the High Court has given a direction that hence forward no proposal should be routed through the F District Magistrate. Such direction of the High Court was not appropriate even though the High Court had anxiety that there should not be delay in preferring appeal in appropriate case. G Mr. Sushi! Kumar the learned senior counsel appearing as amicus curaie has however submitted under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the District Magistrate does not come in the picture in the decision making process regarding filing an appeal against that order of acquittal. He has submitted that there is no difficulty in getting valued opinion from any responsible officer of the State Government including the District Magistrate but for such opinion proposal to prefer appeal initiated by the H Public prosecutor is not required to be routed through the District STATEv. R.L TANDOL 475 Magistrate Rule 50 of Law Officers' Rules of 1939 which is admittedly A being followed even today indicates that the proposal of the Public Prosecutor is to be considered by the State Gover.Qlllent and final decision i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.