Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The mater will, therefore, have to be decided in terms of Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 378(1). so far as it is material for our purpose, provides that the State Government may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal. Sub-section (3) of that section provides that such an appeal shall not be entertained, except with the leave of the High Court. Under law it will be perfectly in order if a composite application is made giving the necessary facts and circumstances of the case along with the grounds which may be urged in the appeal with a prayer for leave to entertain the appeal. It is not necessary as a matter of law, that an application for leave to entertain the appeal should be lodged first and only after grant of leave by the High Court an appeal may be preferred against the order of acquittal. If such a procedure is adopted as above, it is likely, as it has happened in this case, the appeal may be time-barred if the High Court lakes more than ninety days for disposal of the application for leave. The possibility that the High Court may always in such cases condone the delay on application filed before it does not in law, solve the legal issue. The right conferred by Section 378(1), Cr. P. C. upon the State to prefer an appeal against acquittal will be jeopardised if such a procedure is adopted, for in certain cases it may so happen that the High Court may refuse to exercise its discretion to condone the delay. The right conferred under the section cannot be put in peril by an interpretation of Section 378, Cr. P. C. which is likely to affect adversely or even perhaps to destroy that right.