2013 (1) TMI 943 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in a complaint case an appeal from an order of acquittal of the Magistrate would lie to the Sessions Court under Section 378(1) (a) of the Code or to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code - Held that - As already noted Clause 37 of the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India and Clause 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill 1994 which state that in order to guard against the arbitrary exercise of power and to reduce reckless acquittals Section 378 was sought to be amended to provide appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence. Thus this step is taken by the legislature to check arbitrary and reckless acquittals. It appears that being conscious of rise in unmerited acquittals in case of certain acquittals the legislature has enabled the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Sessions Court thereby avoiding the tedious and time consuming procedure of approaching the State with a proposal getting it sanctioned and then filing an appeal. It is true that the State has an overall control over the law and order and public order of the area under its jurisdiction. Till Section 378 was amended by Act 25 of 2005 the State could prefer appeals against all acquittal orders. But the major amendment made in Section 378 by Act 25 of 2005 cannot be ignored. It has a purpose. It does not throw the concern of security of the community to the winds. In fact it makes filing of appeals against certain types of acquittal orders described in Section 378(1)(a) easier less cumbersome and less time consuming. The judgments cited by Mr. Malhotra pertain to Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 and Section 378 prior to its amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and will therefore have no relevance to the present case. We conclude that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court. In the instant case the complaint alleging offences punishable under Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the Rules is filed by complainant Shri Jaiswal Local Health Authority through Delhi Administration. The appellant was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate Patiala House Courts New Delhi. The complainant can challenge the order of acquittal by filing an application for special leave to appeal in the Delhi High Court and not in the Sessions Court. Therefore the impugned order holding that this case is not governed by Section 378(4) of the Code is quashed and set aside. In the circumstances the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Appeals Against Acquittal in Complaint Cases.
2. Interpretation of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 post-amendment by Act 25 of 2005.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Appeals Against Acquittal in Complaint Cases:

The primary issue in this case is whether an appeal from an order of acquittal in a complaint case should be filed in the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or in the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code. The appellant, a supplier-cum-manufacturer of sweetened carbonated water, was acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The State filed an appeal in the Sessions Court, which was contested by the appellant on the grounds of jurisdiction. The Sessions Court rejected this objection, and the matter was taken to the High Court, which held that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction and transferred the appeal to itself. The Supreme Court was then approached to resolve this jurisdictional issue.

2. Interpretation of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 post-amendment by Act 25 of 2005:

The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of Section 378 before and after the amendment by Act 25 of 2005. The un-amended Section 378 allowed the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order of acquittal. The amended Section 378 introduced significant changes, particularly with the addition of clauses (a) and (b) to sub-section (1). The Court noted that Section 378(1)(a) permits the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Sessions Court from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Section 378(1)(b) allows the State Government to 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, excluding orders under clause (a).

The Court emphasized that Section 378(4) specifically deals with appeals against orders of acquittal in complaint cases, stating that such appeals should be filed in the High Court if special leave is granted by it. The Court observed that the Law Commission's reports and the legislative intent behind the amendment aimed to streamline the appeal process and reduce arbitrary acquittals. The Court concluded that the complainant, whether a private person or a public servant, must file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal in the High Court. If special leave is refused, no further appeal can be filed by the State or the Central Government.

The Court also addressed the argument regarding the omission of the words "police report" from Section 378(1)(a), clarifying that the classification of a case as a complaint or a police report depends on the legal provisions relating to the offence involved. The Court reiterated that appeals against acquittal orders in complaint cases must be filed in the High Court, regardless of whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable, cognizable or non-cognizable.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal only in the High Court, not in the Sessions Court. The impugned order of the High Court, which held that the case was not governed by Section 378(4) of the Code, was quashed and set aside. The appeal was allowed, affirming that the complainant must challenge the order of acquittal by filing an application for special leave to appeal in the High Court.