Summary
A three-Judge Bench declined to reconsider Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2010) 5 SCC 1, so the State's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal in a CBI-investigated murder case was not maintainable under Section 378 CrPC. The victim's son also had no right of appeal, because the acquittal predated the proviso to Section 372. Given the gravity of the charges, the Court condoned the CBI's delay of 1373 days and sent its leave application back to the High Court to be decided on merits.
Issues
- Whether Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, holding that the State Government cannot appeal against acquittal in cases covered by Section 378(2) CrPC, needs reconsideration by a larger Bench.
- Whether the State Government's application for leave to appeal was maintainable where the FIR was registered by State police and investigation was later transferred to the CBI at the State's request.
- Whether the de facto complainant could appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC against an acquittal recorded before 31.12.2009.
- Whether the High Court should have condoned the CBI's delay in seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 378(1), (2) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Sub-section (1) is opened by 'save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)', which excludes cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or other Central agencies; for those, the Central Government is the authority to direct an appeal. Following Lalu Prasad Yadav, the State's leave application in a CBI-investigated case was held not maintainable. (¶¶ 10, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
- Section 372, proviso, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The victim's right to appeal against acquittal under the proviso came into force on 31.12.2009 and, following Mallikarjun Kodagali, arises only for acquittals passed after that date; the acquittal here was dated 31.05.2007. (¶¶ 11, 15, 27, 28, 29)
Held
- The Bench saw no reason to differ from Lalu Prasad Yadav: Section 378 CrPC keeps a mutually exclusive division, so in the two classes of cases in sub-section (2) the competent authority to appeal against acquittal is the Central Government and the State Government's authority is excluded. Applying that ratio, the State's leave application was not maintainable. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Whether a State Government may independently appeal against acquittal where the case was registered by local police and later tried on a CBI chargesheet was left open for a suitable case. Relevant factors would include a complaint by the State or its officers, partial investigation by State police, prosecution at the State's instance, the State's stake in the case, and the CBI being brought in at the State's request. The question did not need deciding here because, unlike in Lalu Prasad Yadav, the CBI had itself sought leave to appeal. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The victim's right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC arises only against acquittals passed after 31.12.2009. Since the acquittal was recorded on 31.05.2007, the de facto complainant had no such right and his application was rightly held not maintainable. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29)
- Although the CBI's leave application was 1373 days late, the charges of conspiracy to murder a member of a rival political party were grave and the acquittal was already under challenge by the State and the complainant. The High Court should have taken a liberal and pragmatic approach and decided the leave application on merits rather than rejecting it on a technicality. The Court gave no imprimatur to the CBI's explanation and expressed no view on merits. (¶¶ 26, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Although an acquitted accused is ordinarily not heard at the leave stage, given the long delay condoned, the acquitted respondent was to be heard on the CBI's leave application. The State and the de facto complainant were to be impleaded and heard. (¶ 34)
Result
The CBI's appeal (from SLP (Crl.) No. 3037 of 2012) was allowed: delay condoned and its leave application remitted to the High Court for decision on merits, with the acquitted respondent, the State and the de facto complainant to be heard. The State's appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2014) and the de facto complainant's appeals were dismissed.