1982 (1) TMI 211 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of a Single Judge vs. Division Bench in hearing applications for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Interpretation of Rule 1(q)(ii), Chapter I, Part I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules.
3. Procedural requirements for State appeals under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Legislative intent behind Section 378(3) and its comparison with Section 378(4).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of a Single Judge vs. Division Bench:
The primary question was whether an application for 'leave' to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be heard by a Single Judge or a Bench of two Judges of the High Court. The State Government of Madhya Pradesh contended that such an application should be treated as part of the appeal under Section 378(1) and therefore should be placed before a Division Bench. The practice in the Madhya Pradesh High Court was to list such applications before a Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge had no competence to entertain, hear, or dispose of the application for leave under Section 378(3) as it virtually entailed dismissal of the appeal under Section 378(1). The matter should have been dealt with by a Bench of two Judges as per Rule 1(q)(ii), Chapter I, Part I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules.

2. Interpretation of Rule 1(q)(ii), Chapter I, Part I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules:
Rule 1(q)(ii) specifies that appeals by the Provincial Government under Section 417 of the old Code (now Section 378 of the new Code) from an order of acquittal should be heard by a Bench of two Judges. The Supreme Court interpreted this rule to mean that the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) should also be heard by a Division Bench. The Court rejected the High Court's practice of treating the application for leave as a separate entity to be heard by a Single Judge, stating that such a practice was not supported by the statutory provisions.

3. Procedural Requirements for State Appeals under Section 378:
The Court examined the procedural requirements under Section 378 of the Code. It noted that the making of an application for leave under Section 378(3) is not a condition precedent to the entertainment of an appeal under Section 378(1) or (2). The prayer for leave can be contained in the petition of appeal itself. The Supreme Court emphasized that the language of Section 378(3) does not support the view that there are two distinct stages-first, the application for leave and then the appeal. Instead, the appeal and the application for leave can be combined in one petition.

4. Legislative Intent behind Section 378(3) and its Comparison with Section 378(4):
The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 378(3), noting that it was introduced to create a statutory restriction against the unrestricted right of appeal by the State or Central Government against orders of acquittal. The Court compared the language of Section 378(3) with Section 378(4), which deals with appeals by private complainants and requires a separate application for 'special leave.' The Court found that the legislature intended to treat State appeals differently from private complainant appeals by prescribing different procedures. The State can incorporate a prayer for leave in the memorandum of appeal, whereas a private complainant must first obtain special leave.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order that dismissed the application for leave under Section 378(3) of the Code. It directed that the application should be dealt with by a Bench of two Judges as required by Rule 1(q)(ii), Chapter I, Part I of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules. The Court's decision clarified the procedural requirements and jurisdictional rules for State appeals against acquittals under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

← Previous Next →