Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 50  OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6937 of 2011]

SUBHASH CHAND …        APPELLANT

Vs.

STATE  (DELHI ADMINISTRATION). …        RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

(SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

1. Leave granted.  

2. This  appeal,  by  special  leave,  is  directed  against  

judgment and order dated 07/01/2011 passed by the High  

Court  of  Delhi  in  Criminal  Misc.  Case  No.427  of  2009  

whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the  

appellant holding that an appeal filed by the State against an  

order  of  acquittal  shall  lie  to  the  Sessions  Court  under  

Section 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

Page 2

short,  “the  Code”)  and  not  under  Section  378(4)  of  the  

Code to the High Court.  

3.  The appellant is the supplier-cum-manufacturer of the  

food  article  namely  Sweetened  Carbonated  Water.   He  is  

carrying on business in the name and style of M/s. Subhash  

Soda Water Factory. On 6/6/1989 at about 4.15 p.m.,  one  

P.N.  Khatri,  Food  Inspector,  purchased  a  sample  of  

sweetened  carbonated  water  for  analysis  from  one  Daya  

Chand  Jain,  Vendor-cum-Contractor  of  Canteen  at  Suraj  

Cinema, Dhansa Road, Najafgarh, Delhi. After following the  

necessary  procedure,  the  sample  was  sent  to  the  Public  

Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst opined  

that  the  sample  does  not  conform  to  the  prescribed  

standard.   After  conclusion  of  the  investigation,  the  

respondent–State  through its  Local  Health  Authority  -  P.K.  

Jaiswal filed a Complaint bearing No.64 of 1991 against the  

appellant and Daya Chand in the Court of the Metropolitan  

Magistrate,  New Delhi  alleging that  the appellant  and the  

said  Daya  Chand  had  violated  the  provisions  of  Sections  

2

Page 3

2(ia), (a), (b), (f), (h), (l), (m), Section 2(ix) (j), (k) and Section  

24  of  the  Prevention  of  Food  Adulteration  Act,  1954  (for  

short, “PFA Act”) and Rule 32, Rule 42 (zzz)(i) and Rule 47  

of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (for short,  

“the Rules”) and committed an offence punishable under  

Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the  

Rules.  Since Daya Chand died during the pendency of the  

case, the case abated as against him.  The appellant was  

tried  and acquitted  by  learned Magistrate  by  order  dated  

27/2/2007.  

4. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 27/2/2007, the  

respondent-State preferred Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2008 in  

the Sessions Court under Section 378(1)(a) of the Code. The  

appellant  raised  a  preliminary  objection  in  regard  to  the  

maintainability of the said Appeal before the Sessions Court  

in view of Section 378(4) of the Code.  He contended that an  

appeal arising from an order of acquittal in a complaint case  

shall lie to the High Court.   The said objection was rejected  

by the Sessions Court by order dated 4/2/2009.   

3

Page 4

5. Aggrieved  by  the  said  order  dated  4/2/2009,  the  

appellant  preferred  Criminal  Misc.  Case  No.427  of  2009  

before the High Court.  By order dated 9/7/2009, the High  

Court  held  that  the  Sessions  Court  has  no  jurisdiction  to  

entertain an appeal filed in a complaint case and directed  

that the appeal be transferred to it.   Accordingly, Criminal  

Appeal No.13 of 2008 pending before the Sessions Court was  

transferred to the High Court and re-numbered as Criminal  

Appeal No.642 of 2009.  

6. The  respondent-State  carried  the  said  order  dated  

9/7/2009  to  this  court  by  Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  

No.9880  of  2009  (Criminal  Appeal  No.1514  of  2010).   By  

order dated 13/8/2010, this court remanded the matter to  

the  High  Court  and  directed  that  the  matter  be  decided  

afresh after  taking into  consideration Sections  378(1)  and  

378(4) of the Code and the relevant provisions of the PFA.  

On remand, the High Court passed the impugned judgment  

and order dated 7/1/2011.   

4

Page 5

7. The short  point  which arises for  consideration in  this  

appeal is whether in a complaint case, an appeal from an  

order of acquittal of the Magistrate would lie to the Sessions  

Court under Section 378(1) (a) of the Code or to the High  

Court under Section 378(4) of the Code.  

8. At our request, Mr.  Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional  

Solicitor General has assisted us as Amicus Curiae. We have  

heard Ms.  Meenakshi  Lekhi,  learned counsel  appearing for  

the  petitioner  and  Mr.  P.P.  Malhotra,  learned  Additional  

Solicitor  General  appearing  for  the  State.   Written  

submissions have been filed by the counsel which we have  

carefully perused. Mr.  Luthra took us through the relevant  

excerpts of Law Commission’s reports.  He took us through  

the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994 ( Bill  

No. XXXV of 1994). He  also took us through un-amended  

and amended Section 378 of the Code. After analyzing the  

relevant provisions, Mr. Luthra submitted that no appeal lies  

against  an  order  of  acquittal  in  cases  instituted  upon  a  

5

Page 6

complaint  to  the  Sessions  Court.   Ms.  Lekhi  also  adopted  

similar line of reasoning.

9. Mr.  Malhotra  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  

adopted  a  different  line  of  argument  and  therefore,  it  is  

necessary to note his submissions in detail. Counsel pointed  

out  how  the  law  relating  to  appeals  against  orders  of  

acquittal  has  evolved over  the  years.   Counsel  submitted  

that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861 no appeal  

against an order of acquittal  could be filed.   The Code of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1872  permitted  only  the  State  

Government  to  file  an  appeal  against  acquittal  order.  

Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 permitted  

only the State to file an appeal against acquittal order.  In  

1955 it was amended so as to permit the complainant to file  

an  appeal  against  acquittal  order.  Under  the  Code  of  

Criminal  Procedure,  1973,  Section 417 was substituted by  

Section 378. Counsel pointed out that under Section 378(4) a  

complainant could prefer appeal against order of acquittal, if  

special leave was granted by the High Court.  However, in all  

6

Page 7

cases  the  State  could  present  appeal  against  order  of  

acquittal. Counsel then referred to Section 378 of the Code  

as amended by Act No. 25 of 2005 and submitted that the  

only change in sub-section (1) is adding clauses (a) and (b)  

to it.  Counsel described this change as minor and submitted  

that the State’s right to file appeal against orders of acquittal  

remains intact and is not taken away.  Counsel relied on the  

words ‘State Government may, in any case’ and submitted  

that  these words  preserve the  State’s  right  to  file  appeal  

against acquittal orders of all types.  There is no limitation  

on this right whatsoever.  This right is preserved according  

to the counsel because the State is the protector of people.  

Safety and security of the community is its concern.  Even if  

a complainant does not file an appeal against an order of  

acquittal, the State Government can in public interest file it.  

Counsel  also  addressed us  on the  question  of  plurality  of  

appeals.  That issue is not before us.  It is,  therefore, not  

necessary  to refer  to  that  submission.   In  support  of   his  

submissions counsel placed reliance on  Khemraj v. State  

7

Page 8

of Madhya Pradesh  1  ,  State (Delhi  Adminsitration)  v.    

Dharampal  2  , Akalu Ahir & Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram  3  , State    

v.  Ram  Babu  &  Ors.  4  ,  Food  Inspector  v.  Moidoo  5  ,    

Prasannachary  v.  Chikkapinachari  &  Anr.  6  ,  State  of    

Maharashtra v. Limbaji Sayaji Mhaske, Sarpanch Gram  

Panchayat  7  , State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jagan Nath  8   and  

State of Orissa v. Sapneswar Thappa  9  .

10. To understand the controversy, it is necessary to have  

a look at Section 378 of the Code prior to its amendment by  

Act 25 of 2005 and Section 378 amended thereby.  

11. Section 378 of the Code prior to its amendment by Act  

25 of 2005 read as under:  

“Appeal in case of acquittal.  

378. Appeal in case of acquittal. (1) Save as  otherwise   provided   in   sub-section  (2)  and  

1 1976 (1) SCC 385 2 2001(10) SCC 372 3 1973(2) SCC 583 4 1970 AWR 288 5 1988 (2) KLT 205 6 1959 AIR (Kant) 106 7 1976 (Mah.) LJ 475 8 1986 (90) PLR 466 9 1987 Cri.L.J. 612

8

Page 9

subject to the provisions of sub-sections  (3)  and  (5),   the  State  Government  may,  in  any  case,  direct  the  Public  Prosecutor to present an appeal  to the High Court from an original  or  appellate  order  of acquittal passed by any Court other than  a  High  Court  2*[or an order of acquittal passed  by the Court of  Session  in revision.]  

       (2) If  such an order of acquittal is passed in  any  case  in   which   the   offence   has   been  investigated   by   the   Delhi   Special   Police  Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special  Police Establishment  Act,  1946  (25  of 1946), or  by  any  other  agency   empowered   to   make  investigation  into an offence under any Central  Act  other   than   this   Code,  the  Central  Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor  to  present  an appeal, subject to the provisions of  sub-section  (3),  to the High Court from the order  of acquittal.  

       (3) No  appeal under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2)  shall  be  entertained except with the  leave of the High Court.  

     (4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in  any case instituted  upon complaint and the High  Court,  on  an  application  made  to  it  by  the  complainant  in this behalf, grants special leave to  appeal   from   the   order  of  acquittal,  the  complainant may present such an appeal to  the  High Court.  

       (5) No  application under sub-section (4) for  the grant of special  leave to appeal from an order  of acquittal shall be entertained by the  High Court  after  the  expiry  of  six  months,  where  the  complainant is  a  public servant, and sixty days in  every other case, computed from  the  date of that  order of acquittal.  

9

Page 10

      (6) If in any case, the application under sub- section (4) for  the  grant  of  special  leave  to  appeal from an  order  of  acquittal  is  refused,  no  appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under  sub-  section (1) or under sub-section (2).”  

Thus,  under  earlier  Section  378(1)  of  the  Code,  the  

State  Government  could,  in  any  case,  direct  the  Public  

Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an  

original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court  

other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by  

the  Court  of  Session  in  revision.   Section  378(2)  covered  

cases where order of acquittal  was passed in any case in  

which the offence had been investigated by the Delhi Special  

Police  Establishment  constituted  under  the  Delhi  Special  

Police  Establishment  Act,  1946  or  by  any  other  agency  

empowered to make investigation into an offence under any  

Central Act other than the Code.  In such cases, the Central  

Government  could  also  direct  the  Public  Prosecutor  to  

present  an  appeal  to  the  High  Court  from  an  order  of  

acquittal.    Section 378(3) stated that appeals under sub-

sections (1) and (2) of Section 378 of the Code could not be  

10

Page 11

entertained except with the leave of the High Court.  Sub-

section (4) of Section 378 of the Code provided for orders of  

acquittal  passed  in  any  case  instituted  upon  complaint.  

According to this provision, if on an application made to it by  

the  complainant,  the  High  Court  grants  special  leave  to  

appeal  from the order  of  acquittal,  the complainant could  

present such an appeal to the High Court.  Sub-section (5) of  

Section 378 of the Code provided for a period of limitation.  

Sub-section (6) of Section 378 of the Code stated that if in  

any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant  

of  special  leave  to  appeal  from  an  order  of  acquittal  is  

refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under  

sub-sections (1) or (2).  Thus, if the High Court refused to  

grant special leave to appeal to the complainant, no appeal  

from that order of acquittal could be filed by the State or the  

agency  contemplated  in  Section  378(2).   It  is  clear  from  

these provisions that earlier an appeal against an order of  

acquittal could only lie to the High Court.  Sub-section (4)  

was aimed at giving finality to the orders of acquittal.  

11

Page 12

12. Before we proceed to analyze the amended Section 378  

of the Code, it is necessary to quote the relevant clause in  

the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India, which led  

to  the amendment  of  Section 378 by Act  25 of  2005.   It  

reads thus:

“6.12.  Clause 37: In order to guard against the  arbitrary exercise of power and to reduce reckless   acquittals, Section 378 is sought to be amended   providing an appeal against an order of acquittal   passed by a Magistrate in respect  of  cognizable   and non-bailable offence filed on a police report to   the  Court  of  Session  as  directed  by  the  District   Magistrate.  In respect of all other cases filed on a   police report, an appeal shall lie to the High Court   against an order of acquittal passed by any other   court other than the High Court, as directed by the   State  Government.   The  power  to  recommend  appeal in the first category is sought to be vested   in the District Magistrate and the power in respect   of second category would continue with the State   Government.”  

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994  

has the same note on Clause 37.

13. Though,  the Law Commission’s  154th report  indicated  

that  Section  378  was  being  amended  to  provide  that  an  

appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate  

12

Page 13

in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence filed on a  

police report would lie to the court of Sessions, the words  

“police report”  were not included in the amended Section  

378.  In  this  connection,  it  is  necessary  to  refer  to  the  

relevant extract from the Law Commission’s 221st report of  

April, 2009.  After noting amendment made to Section 378  

the Law Commission stated as under:  

“2.9 All appeals against orders of acquittal passed  by Magistrates were being filed in High Court prior  to amendment of Section 378 by Act 25 of 2005.  Now, with effect from 23.06.2006, appeals against  orders  of  acquittal  passed  by  Magistrates  in  respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences in  cases filed on police report are being filed in the  Sessions Court, vide clause (a) of sub-section (1)  of the said section.  But, appeal against order of  acquittal  passed  in  any  case  instituted  upon  complaint continues to be filed in the High Court, if  special  leave  is  granted  by  it  on  an  application  made to it  by the complainant,  vide sub-section  (4) of the said section. 2.10 Section  378  needs  change  with  a  view  to  enable filing of appeals in complaint cases also in  the Sessions Court, of course, subject to the grant  of special leave by it.”

These  two  extracts  of  the  Law  Commission’s  report  

make it clear that though the words ‘police report’ are not  

mentioned in Section 378(1) (a), the Law Commission noted  

13

Page 14

that  the  effect  of  the  amendment  was  that  all  appeals  

against  an  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  a  Magistrate  in  

respect  of  a  cognizable  and non-bailable  offence in  cases  

filed on police report are being filed in the Sessions Court.  

The  Law Commission  lamented  that  there  is  no  provision  

enabling filing of appeal in complaint cases in the Sessions  

Court subject to the grant of special leave by it.  Thus, the  

Law Commission acknowledged that there is no provision in  

the Code under which appeals in complaint cases could be  

filed in the Sessions Court.  We agree with this opinion for  

reasons which we shall now state.  

14. Having  analysed  un-amended  Section  378  it  is  

necessary  to  have a look at  Section 378 of  the Code,  as  

amended by Act 25 of 2005.  It reads as under:

“378. Appeal in case of acquittal.

[(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)   and subject  to  the  provisions  of  subsections  (3)   and (5), -   

(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case,   direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal   to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal   

14

Page 15

passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable   and non-bailable offence;   

(b) the State Government may, in any case,   direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal   to  the  High  Court  from an  original  or  appellate   order of acquittal passed by any court other than   a  High  Court  [not  being  an  order  under  clause   (a)] [or an order of acquittal passed by the Court   of Session in revision].   (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any   case in which the offence has been investigated   by  the  Delhi  Special  Police  Establishment   constituted  under  the  Delhi  Special  Police   Establishment Act,  1946 (25 of 1946) or by any   other  agency  empowered  to  make  investigation   into an offence under any Central Act other than  this Code. [the Central Government may, subject   to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the   Public Prosecutor to present an appeal-   

(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of   acquittal  passed by a Magistrate in respect of a   cognizable and non-bailable offence;   

(b)  to  the  High  Court  from  an  original  or   appellate  order  of  an  acquittal  passed  by  any   Court other than a High Court [not being an order   under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal] passed   by the Court of Session in revision.]   (3)[No appeal to the High Court] under subsection   (1) or subsection (2) shall be entertained except   with the leave of the High Court.   (4) If such an order of' acquittal is passed in any   case  instituted  upon  Complaint  and  the  High  Court,  on  an  application  made  to  it  by  the   

15

Page 16

complainant in this behalf, grants, special leave to   appeal  from  the  order  of  acquittal,  the  complainant may present such an appeal  to the   High Court.   (5)  No  application  under  subsection  (4)  for  the  grant of special leave to appeal from an order of   acquittal  shall  be entertained by the High Court   after  the  expiry  of  six  months,  where  the   complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in   every other case, computed from the date of that   order of acquittal.   (6)  If  in  any  case,  the  application  under  sub- section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal   from an order of acquittal  is  refused,  no appeal   from that  order  of  acquittal  shall  lie  under  sub- section (1) or under subsection (2).”

15. At  the  outset,  it  must  be  noted  that  as  per  Section  

378(3) appeals against orders of acquittal which have to be  

filed in the High Court under Section 378(1)(b) and 378(2)(b)  

of the Code cannot be entertained except with the leave of  

the High Court. Section 378(1)(a) provides that, in any case,  

if an order of acquittal is passed by a Magistrate in respect of  

a cognizable and non-bailable offence the District Magistrate  

may direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the  

court of Sessions.  Sub-Section (1)(b) of Section 378 provides  

that,  in  any  case,  the  State  Government  may  direct  the  

16

Page 17

Public Prosecutor to file an appeal to the High Court from an  

original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court  

other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a)  

or an order of acquittal passed by  the Court of Session in  

revision. Sub-Section(2) of Section 378 refers to orders of  

acquittal  passed  in  any  case  investigated  by  the  Delhi  

Special  Police  Establishment  constituted  under  the  Delhi  

Special  Police  Establishment  Act,  1946  or  by  any  other  

agency  empowered to  make  investigation  into  an  offence  

under any Central Act other than the Code.  This provision is  

similar to sub-section(1) except that here the words ‘State  

Government’  are  substituted  by  the  words  ‘Central  

Government’.  

16. If we analyse Section 378(1)(a) & (b), it is clear that the  

State Government cannot direct the Public Prosecutor to file  

an  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal  passed  by  a  

Magistrate   in  respect  of  a  cognizable  and  non-bailable  

offence because of the categorical bar created by Section  

378(1)(b).  Such appeals,  that is appeals against orders of  

17

Page 18

acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable  

and non-bailable offence can only be filed in the Sessions  

Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed by  

the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words “in  

any case”  but  leaves out  orders of  acquittal  passed by a  

Magistrate  in  respect  of  a  cognizable  and  non-bailable  

offence  from  the  control  of  the  State  Government.  

Therefore, in all  other cases where orders of acquittal  are  

passed  appeals  can  be  filed  by  the  Public  Prosecutor  as  

directed by the State Government to the High Court.   

17. Sub-Section  (4)  of  Section  378  makes  provision  for  

appeal against an order of acquittal passed in case instituted  

upon  complaint.   It  states  that  in  such  case  if  the  

complainant makes an application to the High Court and the  

High Court grants special leave to appeal, the complainant  

may present such an appeal to the High Court.  This sub-

section speaks of ‘special leave’ as against sub-section (3)  

relating  to  other  appeals  which  speaks  of  ‘leave’.   Thus,  

complainant’s  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal  is  a  

18

Page 19

category  by  itself.   The  complainant  could  be  a  private  

person or a public servant.  This is evident from sub-section  

(5) which refers to application filed for ‘special leave’ by the  

complainant. It grants six months period of limitation to a  

complainant who is a public servant and sixty days in every  

other case for filing application. Sub-Section (6) is important.  

It  states  that  if  in  any  case  complainant’s  application  for  

‘special  leave’  under sub-Section (4)  is  refused no appeal  

from  order  of  acquittal  shall  lie  under  sub-section  (1)  or  

under sub-section (2).  Thus, if ‘special leave’ is not granted  

to the complainant to appeal against an order of acquittal  

the matter must end there.  Neither the District Magistrate  

not the State Government can appeal against that order of  

acquittal. The idea appears to be to accord quietus to the  

case in such a situation.

18. Since  the  words  ‘police  report’  are  dropped  from  

Section  378(1)  (a)  despite  the  Law  Commission’s  

recommendation, it is not necessary to dwell on it. A police  

report is defined under Section 2(r) of the Code to mean a  

19

Page 20

report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under  

sub-section  (2)  of  Section  173  of  the  Code.   It  is  a  

culmination  of  investigation  by  the  police  into  an  offence  

after  receiving  information  of  a  cognizable  or  a  non-

cognizable  offence.   Section  2(d)  defines  a  complaint  to  

mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate  

with a view to his taking action under the Code, that some  

person,  whether  known  or  unknown  has  committed  an  

offence, but does not include a police report.  Explanation to  

Section 2(d) states that a report made by a police officer in a  

case which discloses after investigation, the commission of a  

non-cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint,  

and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be  

deemed  to  be  the  complainant.   Sometimes  investigation  

into cognizable offence conducted under Section 154 of the  

Code may culminate into a complaint case (cases under the  

Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940).  Under the PFA Act, cases are  

instituted  on  filing  of  a  complaint  before  the  Court  of  

Metropolitan Magistrate as specified in Section 20 of the PFA  

Act and offences under the PFA Act are both cognizable and  

20

Page 21

non-cognizable.  Thus, whether a case is a case instituted on  

a complaint depends on the legal provisions relating to the  

offence involved therein.  But once it is a case instituted on a  

complaint and an order of acquittal is passed, whether the  

offence  be  bailable  or  non-bailable,  cognizable  or  non-

cognizable,  the  complainant  can  file  an  application  under  

Section 378(4) for special leave to appeal against it in the  

High  Court.   Section  378(4)  places  no  restriction  on  the  

complainant.   So  far  as  the  State  is  concerned,  as  per  

Section 378(1)(b), it can in any case, that is even in a case  

instituted on a complaint, direct the Public Prosecutor to file  

an appeal  to the High Court from an original  or appellate  

order of acquittal passed by any court other than High Court.  

But  there  is,  as  stated  by  us  hereinabove,  an  important  

inbuilt  and categorical restriction on the State’s power.  It  

cannot  direct  the  Public  Prosecutor  to  present  an  appeal  

from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect  

of a cognizable and non-cognizable offence.  In such a case  

the District  Magistrate may under Section 378(1)(a) direct  

the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal to the Session Court.  

21

Page 22

This  appears  to  be  the  right  approach  and  correct  

interpretation of Section 378 of the Code.   

19. Mr. Malhotra is right in submitting that it is only when  

Section  417  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  1898  was  

amended in 1955 that the complainant was given a right to  

seek special leave from the High Court to file an appeal to  

challenge an acquittal order.  Section 417 was replaced by  

Section 378 in the Code.  It contained similar provision.  But,  

Act No.25 of 2005 brought about a major amendment in the  

Code.  It introduced Section 378(1)(a) which permitted the  

District  Magistrate,  in  any  case,  to  direct  the  Public  

Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from  

an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a  

cognizable  and non-bailable  offence.   For  the  first  time a  

provision was introduced whereunder an appeal against an  

order of acquittal could be filed in the Sessions Court.  Such  

appeals were restricted to orders passed by a Magistrate in  

cognizable  and  non-bailable  offences.   Section  378(1)(b)  

specifically  and in  clear  words placed a  restriction on the  

22

Page 23

State’s right to file such appeals.   It  states that the State  

Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to  

present  an  appeal  to  the  High  Court  from  an  original  or  

appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a  

High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of  

acquittal passed by the Sessions Court in revision.  Thus, the  

State  Government  cannot  present  an  appeal  against  an  

order  of  acquittal  passed by  a  Magistrate in  respect  of  a  

cognizable and non-bailable offence.  We have already noted  

Clause 37 of the 154th Report of the Law Commission of India  

and  Clause  37  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  

(Amendment) Bill,  1994 which state that in order to guard  

against  the  arbitrary  exercise  of  power  and  to  reduce  

reckless acquittals Section 378 was sought to be amended to  

provide  appeal  against  an  order  of  acquittal  passed by  a  

Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence.  

Thus, this step is taken by the legislature to check arbitrary  

and reckless acquittals.  It appears that being conscious of  

rise in unmerited acquittals, in case of certain acquittals, the  

legislature has enabled the District Magistrate to direct the  

23

Page 24

Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Sessions Court,  

thereby avoiding the tedious and time consuming procedure  

of  approaching  the  State  with  a  proposal,  getting  it  

sanctioned and then filing an appeal.

20. It is true that the State has an overall control over the  

law  and  order  and  public  order  of  the  area  under  its  

jurisdiction.  Till Section 378 was amended by Act 25 of 2005  

the State could prefer appeals against all  acquittal orders.  

But the major amendment made in Section 378 by Act 25 of  

2005 cannot be ignored.  It has a purpose.  It does not throw  

the concern of security of the community to the winds.  In  

fact,  it  makes  filing  of  appeals  against  certain  types  of  

acquittal  orders described in Section 378(1)(a) easier, less  

cumbersome and less time consuming.  The judgments cited  

by  Mr.  Malhotra  pertain  to  Section  417  of  the  Criminal  

Procedure  Code,  1898  and  Section  378  prior  to  its  

amendment by Act 25 of 2005 and will, therefore, have no  

relevance to the present case.

24

Page 25

21. In view of the above, we conclude that a complainant  

can file an application for special leave to appeal against an  

order of acquittal  of any kind only to the High Court.   He  

cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court.  In the instant  

case  the  complaint  alleging  offences  punishable  under  

Section 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the  

Rules  is  filed  by  complainant  Shri  Jaiswal,  Local  Health  

Authority through Delhi Administration.  The appellant was  

acquitted  by  the  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Patiala  House  

Courts, New Delhi.  The complainant can challenge the order  

of  acquittal  by  filing  an  application  for  special  leave  to  

appeal in the Delhi High Court and not in the Sessions Court.  

Therefore, the impugned order holding that this case is not  

governed by Section 378(4) of the Code is quashed and set  

aside.  In the circumstances the appeal is allowed.

……………………………………………..J.        (AFTAB ALAM)

……………………………………………..J.     (RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI)

25

Page 26

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 8, 2013.

26