Can a State Government File an Appeal Against Acquittal When the CBI Takes Over Investigation Under Section 378 CrPC?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The bench reaffirms that Sections 378(1) and 378(2) CrPC are mutually exclusive: State Government cannot appeal acquittal in CBI-investigated cases.
• Proviso to Section 372 CrPC (victim’s right to appeal acquittal) applies only prospectively to acquittals rendered after 31 Dec 2009.
• High Courts should take a liberal approach to condoning delay in leave to appeal applications filed by central agencies in grave criminal matters.
• An acquitted accused should be heard if delay is condoned in the agency’s leave application.
• State and victim parties must ensure statutory timelines before invoking appellate rights under CrPC.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Statutory Framework
   • Analyzed Sections 378(1)–(3) CrPC and Section 417 CrPC (1898).
   • Noted amendment adding “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)” to Section 378(1).
2. Mutual Exclusivity of Sections 378(1) and 378(2)
   • The exception clause excludes CBI-investigated cases from State appeal under sub-section (1).
   • Central Government alone may appeal in those two classes of cases under sub-section (2).
3. Precedent Analysis
   • Relied on Three-Judge Bench in Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. (2010).
   • Held that omission of exception would render the amendment redundant.
4. Victim’s Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC
   • Held proviso effective only for acquittals post 31 Dec 2009 (Mallikarjun Kodagali (2019)).
5. Condonation of Delay
   • While not endorsing CBI’s explanation, SC directed High Court to consider CBI’s leave application on merits and condone delay in grave offences.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner – State of Chhattisgarh

• Lalu Prasad ratio inapplicable: initial state police FIR and chargesheet; CBI only supplemented.
• State Government retained right to appeal under Section 378(1).

Petitioner – CBI

• Delay in seeking leave bona fide: initial belief State Government would appeal.
• High Court should exercise inherent power to condone delay.

Petitioner – De-facto-complainant

• Victim’s appeal provision in proviso to Section 372 CrPC is socio-beneficial and should be retrospective.

Respondent – Acquitted Accused

• High Court correctly held State, CBI, and victim appeals non-maintainable and time-barred.

Factual Background

A political leader’s murder on 4 June 2003 prompted an FIR by State police under Sections 307 and 427 IPC. After initial chargesheet, the victim’s son petitioned for CBI takeover, leading to a fresh chargesheet under Sections 302, 120-B, 324, 427, 193, and 218 IPC. The trial court convicted co-accused but acquitted one accused for insufficient evidence. The State, CBI, and victim all sought to challenge this acquittal before the High Court, which dismissed appeals as non-maintainable or time-barred.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 378(1) CrPC: State Government’s right to appeal acquittal “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)”.
• Section 378(2) CrPC: Central Government’s right in CBI or similar agency cases, subject to sub-section (3).
• Section 378(3) CrPC: Leave to appeal requirement and time limit.
• Proviso to Section 372 CrPC: Victim’s right to appeal acquittal, effective from 31 Dec 2009.

Procedural Innovations

• Directs High Courts to adopt pragmatic approach in condoning delay for central agencies in leave to appeal applications.
• Permits hearing of acquitted accused when delay is condoned.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr.