Jharkhand High Court
Raghunath Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others ....Opp. ... on 19 March, 2018
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Ratnaker Bhengra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. (D.B) No. 321 of 2018
---
Raghunath Pradhan ....Petitioner.
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand & others ....Opp. Parties.
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra G.A. Bardhan, Adv.
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Deepak Kumar, A.P.P
For the opposite party nos. 2-4 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Adv.
---
3/19.3.2018 Learned counsel for the private opposite parties has taken a plea on the maintainability of present criminal miscellaneous petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2013 (G.R. Case no. 57 of 2013, corresponding to Gamharia P.S. Case No. 10 of 2013) dated 15th December, 2017 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan, whereby and whereunder the accused persons/private opposite parties herein, have been acquitted for the charges under Sections 307 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code while convicting them for the charges under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, learned Court had released the accused persons giving them the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act after due admonition that they would not commit any offence in future.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2-4 submits that there is a clear distinction in a case of acquittal in a complaint case, in which the complainant or a public servant would have to seek special leave to appeal from the High Court on an application made within the time prescribed as per Section 378(4) & (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, if a victim seeks to exercise his right to appeal in terms of proviso to Section 372 as amended in 2009, appellant will have to seek leave of the High Court under Section 378(3) before the appeal is entertained, in terms of the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Satya Pal Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in (2015) 15 S.C.C 613. Since the sessions trial arose from an F.I.R and prosecuted by the State, the victim informant/petitioner herein should 2. have preferred acquittal appeal as provided under Rule 84(z5) of the Jharkhand High Court Rules along with an interlocutory application seeking leave of this Court instead of filing separate criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 378(3) of the Code. There is a clear distinction in the language used in Section 378(3) on the one hand and Section 378(4)(5) on the other hand. Section 378(4) conceives of a separate application to be made by the complainant seeking special leave to appeal and only after grant of such special leave, he may present such an appeal to the High Court. Whereas in the cases which are not instituted on complaint, the victim exercising the right to appeal under proviso to Section 372 would not be required to file a separate application under Section 378(3) in view of the language used therein. The present petition would therefore not be maintainable. He has also referred to the case of Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (2013) 2 SCC 17 in support of his submission.
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed time to come prepared on the issue of maintainability in the next week. Matter is passed over for the day.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh,J) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J) JK