Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Subhash Chand vs State(Delhi Administration) on 8 January, 2013
14. The controversy now is no longer res integra in view
of the pronouncement of law by Supreme Court in
'Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration)', (2013)
2 SCC 17. It was a complaint case under Section 7 of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, in which Subhash
Chand was tried and he was acquitted by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate. The State filed criminal appeal
before the Sessions Court under Section 378 (1)(a)
Cr.P.C. Preliminary objection regarding maintainability
of the appeal before the Sessions Court was rejected.
That order was challenged before this Court (Delhi High
Court) and it was held that Sessions Court had no
jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The order of the
High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court
who remanded the case to this Court for fresh decision
after taking into consideration the provisions of Sections
378(1) and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. and the relevant provisions
Crl.M.C. No.5243/2014 Page 4 of 6
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. After
remand, this Court held that the appeal filed by the State
against an order of acquittal would lie to the Sessions
Court under Section 378 (1) of the Cr.P.C. Again, this
order was challenged by the accused before the Supreme
Court and Supreme Court held :