AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I heard Mr. M. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the applicants; Mr. N. Kumarjit, learned AG for the respondent No. 8, Mr. Th. Tolapishak, learned
counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Mr. L. Seityandra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos, 1,2,3,5,6 and 7.
This Miscellaneous Case has been filed by the petitioners under Section 378(3) read with Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking grant
of special leave to appeal challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Court (ND&PS), Lamphelpat, Imphal.
According to the petitioners, they are members of The 3.5 Collective and are fighting for social causes where the rights, life and liberty of persons
are infringed and affected. According to the petitioners, they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.100 of
2018, thereby acquitting accused 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11. According to the petitioners, they have been keenly following the proceedings of the case
since its publication in the media both print and electronic.
It is stated that The 3.5 Collective has submitted petitions to various authorities, including the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Minister of Manipur
and Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, requesting them to appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2020, however, no action was
seen to be initiated to file an appeal. In fact, the Special Public Prosecutor of ND&PS Court, Manipur has also submitted grounds of appeal to the
Public Prosecutor (District), Government of Manipur on 21.12.2020 against the judgment dated 17.12.2020. But no action was taken to file the appeal
by the said authorities. Since the State failed to file an appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2020, the petitioners have decided to prefer an appeal
with the special leave of this Court and for this purpose, they have filed Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2020. Accordingly, the petitioners prayed for
special leave to appeal.
The fourth respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that after prolonged enquiry and trial for about two and half years, the learned Special Court
acquitted the fourth respondent and six others on 17.12.2020 from the charges levelled against them. It is stated that at the time of framing charges,
four accused were discharged and finally, by the judgment dated 17.12.2020, the learned Special Court convicted two accused for 15 years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated that Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State Government to direct the
Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an order passed by any Court other than the High Court. The petitioners are not the
informants, nor the victims in the present case. Hence, the question of applicability of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. It is
also stated that since the inception of the present case, the petitioners and their hired men always interfered and disturbed the Court‟s proceedings
and caused chaos in the public and they are not trying to assist the Court in proper form.
The respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 filed counter- affidavit stating that the petitioners are neither victims nor complainants within the meaning of the
definition under the Criminal Procedure Code to file an application seeking special leave to prefer an appeal. No valid ground has been made out by
the petitioners in seeking special leave to appeal and thus, prayed for dismissal of the Miscellaneous Case.
Mr. Gunedhor, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are the persons fighting for social causes and in fact they are the
members of The 3.5 Collective, which is a coalition of civil society groups and individuals striving to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goal
number 3, target number 5, which is to strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance abuse, including Narcotic Drug abuse and harmful use of
alcohol.
The learned counsel would submit that the petitioners have been keenly watching the trial proceedings of the Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018
from the beginning and that by the judgment dated 17.12.2020, the learned Special Court, acquitted the accused 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 from the
charges levelled against them.
The learned counsel further submitted that since the State failed to initiate steps to file an appeal against the acquittal judgment, The 3.5 Collective
has submitted petitions to the Prime Minister of India, the Chief Minister of Manipur and the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur
requesting them to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2020. But no action was taken so far to prefer an appeal against the said
judgment.
The learned counsel next submitted that even though the Special Public Prosecutor of the ND & PS Court, Manipur submitted grounds of appeal
to the Public Prosecutor (District), Manipur against the judgment dated 17.12.2020, the Public Prosecutor (District), has not shown any interest in
preferring the appeal till date. Therefore, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in the Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018, the
petitioners have decided to prefer an appeal, for which they sought special leave to appeal. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for special leave
to appeal.
Though the 8th respondent State has not filed any counter-affidavit, Mr. Kumarjit Singh, learned Advocate General of Manipur appears on behalf
of the State and submitted that the petitioners are not the victims and that they have no locus standi to file the appeal as per the provision u/s 378(3)
and 372 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to seek special leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2020.
Placing reliance upon the decision in the case of National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 599, learned
counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that no appeal lies from a judgment of a criminal Court except as provided by or by any other law. Coming
to the special leave sought by the petitioners, the learned counsel submitted that Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State
Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal to the High Court and since the petitioners are neither the complainants nor the victims,
they have no locus to file the appeal. Further, the question of applicability of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise in this case.
Mr.L.Seityandra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 submits that since the petitioners are private persons, they have no
locus to file the appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020. He would submit that the Criminal Procedure Code provides that it is the State
Government or the Central Government which can issue a direction to the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal before the High Court or the Court
of Sessions and that the Criminal Procedure Code does not in any manner authorize an appeal to the High Court by the private persons like the
petitioners against the acquittal judgment.
Placing reliance upon the decision in the case of Panapu Sreenivasulu @ Evone Water Sreenivasulu and others, (2013) CriLJ 2764, the learned
counsel submitted that the petitioners cannot be termed as victims and that they have no right to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated
17.12.2020.
This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel for parties and also perused the materials available on record.
The solitary issue which falls for consideration is: whether the petitioners, who are third parties, are entitled to seek special leave oppugning the
acquittal or conviction of the accused under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The petitioners sought special leave to appeal mainly on the ground that despite addressing the State Government, the State has failed to prefer the
appeal against the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in the Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018. Since the petitioners are members of the The 3.5
Collective and are fighting for the social causes, particularly drug cause, they may be granted leave to file the appeal.
Admittedly, the petitioners are not the complainants or victims in this case. An appeal is a creature of a statute and cannot lie under any inherent
power. The appeal should be filed and entertained only as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The petitioners have filed Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2020 seeking special leave to appeal under Section 378(3) read with Section 372 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.
Before we proceed further, it would be apposite to notice the relevant provisions. At first, let us analyze Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure
Code in respect of filing of appeals.
The provision of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it exists today reads as under:
“378. Appeal in case of acquittal.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section
(2) and 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.
(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).â€
(emphasis supplied)
The Law Commission of India in its 154th report, suggested certain changes to Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, relating to Appeal
against acquittal. Pursuant to the said suggestion, the Parliament amended Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, by Act 25 of 2005, with effect
from 23.06.2006. Such earlier amendment to the provision is extracted hereunder:-
“In Section 378 of the Principal Act,
(i) for sub-section (1), the following sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of Sub- sections (3) & (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
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 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.â€
It is clear from the reading of Section 378(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code 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) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Such appeals, namely appeals against orders of 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) of the Criminal Procedure Code 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.
Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code 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 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 nor 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.
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 report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under sub- section (2) of
Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure 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 Criminal Procedure 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 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 herein above, 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. This appears to be the right approach and
correct interpretation of Section 378 of the Code.
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 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. Clause 37 of the
154th Report of the Law Commission of India and Clause 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994 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 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.
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 right of appeal is always a creature of the statute. The same is clear from the very language of Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
which categorically states that ""no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by the Code or by another
Law for the time being in force."" When this provision stood as such before the coming into force of Act 5 of 2009, it was only the State which can file
an Appeal against acquittal in all cases which arises out of a ""Police Report"". The ""victim"" did not have such a right and the only remedy that was
available for a victim at that point of time was to file a Criminal Revision Petition against such acquittals. It must be borne in mind that even before the
amendment came into force, the complainant was provided with an independent right of Appeal against acquittal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Code. Therefore, the complainant was treated differently under the Code. The Parliament thought it fit to recognize the rights of a victim in
a criminal case which arises out of a ""Police Report"". The victims were left high and dry in all cases of acquittals arising out of a ""Police Report"" and
even if the victims filed a revision petition against acquittals, the scope of interference was very limited than the scope of an Appeal. This necessitated
the Parliament to bring in the amendment which specifically catered to the rights of a victim to a crime.
This Court took judicial notice of the Hon‟ble Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Ganapathy v.N. Senthilvel, (2016) 4
CTC 119. The question that was raised before the Full Bench was whether the word 'victim' is synonymous with the word 'complainant' with specific
reference to proviso to Sections 372 and 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Hon‟ble Full Bench, placing reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon‟ble Apex Court in Satya Pal Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2015) 15 Supreme Court Cases 613, which arose out of a Police
Report, pursuant to a First Information Report lodged and registered, held that the term victim also includes a complainant and he can also avail of the
remedy under proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code and file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
The judgment of the Hon‟ble Three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented through Legal
Representatives V. State of Karnataka and others (MANU/SC/1165/2018 : (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 752 arose out of an acquittal in a case
emerging from a ""Police Report"". The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt in detail regarding the right available to a victim. The majority judgment held that a
victim as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code, is entitled to file an Appeal against acquittal in view of the Proviso to Section
372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, without seeking for any leave to Appeal under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The minority
judgment held otherwise only on this issue wherein the dissenting Judge held that even in such cases, the Victim has to seek for a leave to Appeal
under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Insofar as the other issues are concerned, all the three Judges concurred. The relevant portions
in the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“76. As far as the question of the grant of special leave is concerned, once again, we need not be overwhelmed by submissions made at the Bar.
The language of the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4) of the
Cr.P.C. The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word
'complaint' has been defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do
with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as
the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned.
…
Adverting to subsection (4) of Section 378 of CrPC, if an order of acquittal is passed on a case instituted upon a complaint then the High Court
before entertaining an appeal by the complainant must grant special leave to appeal. The expression ""Special leave to appeal"" has no different meaning
than the expression ""leave to appeal"" and it appears to me that the word ""special"" has been added only to distinguish ""leave to appeal"" sought by the
complainant from the ""leave to appeal"" sought by the State. Thus, in a complaint case where the complainant has set the wheels of the Court in motion
even if the complainant files the appeal he must obtain special leave to appeal. This again gives rise to an interesting question Can the victim be placed
on a higher pedestal than the complainant? More often than not, the victim and the complainant are likely to be one and the same person.
In case, I accept the proposition that the victim need not seek leave to appeal in case the appeal is to be filed in the High Court there shall be
another anomalous situation. Supposing there are two victims in a case and one of the victims files a complaint and sets the wheels of justice moving
and the case is tried as a complaint case. In case the accused is acquitted and the victim who is the complainant wants to file an appeal in the High
Court, he will have to seek special leave to appeal whereas the victim who had not even approached the Court at the initial stage will be entitled to file
an appeal without seeking leave to appeal. This could not have been the intention of the Legislature.â€
It is clear from the above that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in no uncertain terms has held that it is not necessary to consider the effect of a victim
being the complainant as far as proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is concerned. There is no iota of doubt from the above
judgment that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the respective paths available to a victim in case of a Police Report and a complainant
in a case arising out of a complaint. Both of them have been given a separate path to work out their right of Appeal. One cannot cross over into the
path of the other and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has only reiterated the scheme that is already available under the Code of criminal procedure.
This judgment was subsequently followed in Naval Kishore Mishra Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in MANU/SC/1052/2019 :
AIR 2019 SC 3352. It is also seen that almost all the High Courts have held that a complainant can file an Appeal against acquittal only before the
High Court under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Coming to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the said Section provides no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal
Court except as provided for by the Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an
appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such
appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Thus, the right of the victim to file an
appeal is merely recognized in the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, but it is subject to the procedure contemplated under Section 378 of the Code.
The victim when chooses to exercise his statutory right under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code, will have to follow the procedure contemplated
under Section 378 of the Code and such an appeal will have to be filed within the period of limitation stipulated in Section 378 of the Code as the said
Section alone deals with the procedure provided in the Code with regard to the appeal against an order of acquittal.
Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides for appeal from convictions. Section 377 of the Criminal Procedure Code speaks about the
appeal by the State Government against the sentence. In light of different types of right of appeal provided to the victim and to the State/Prosecution,
it will not be proper to say that the right of either of them is dependent upon the other. To put it differently, only victim can file an appeal against an
order of imposing 'inadequate compensation' in addition to his right of appeal against acquittal and convicting the accused for a lesser offence. The
right of appeal being statutory one, the language employed by the legislature should be strictly followed.
The legislative policy to grant unconditional right to appeal to a victim is thus writ large. It would indeed not only amount to rewriting the proviso to
Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but would also defeat the legislative will if the restrictions expressly embedded in Section 378(3) and (4)
of the Criminal Procedure Code are impliedly planted into proviso to Section 372 also. Since leave to appeal under Section 378(3) is confined only to
such appeals which are presented by the State or Central Governments under sub-section (1)(b) or sub-section (2) (b) of Section 378. The right(s) of
a victim under the amended Code are substantive and not mere brutam fulmen, hence these are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State and
are totally incomparable as both the sets of rights or duties operate in different and their respective fields. Thus, a victim is not obligated to seek leave
or special leave of the High Court for presentation of appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In a recent historic
judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court ruled that besides the State, a victim of a criminal offence can also file an appeal under the Code of Criminal
Procedure in superior Courts, challenging acquittal of the accused without prior nod of the appellate Court. Thus, the discussed provisions of the
Criminal Procedure Code provide for appeal by victim or State/Prosecution and not by any third party.
Coming to the facts of the present case, it is stated on behalf of the petitioners that the State has not taken any effective steps in filing the appeal
against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018 and, therefore, they may be permitted to file appeal. It is
the plea of the petitioners that they are the members of The 3.5 Collective and despite The 3.5 Collective submitting a petition to the Prime Minister of
India, the Chief Minister and the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, no appeal was preferred by the State.
It is not necessary for this Court to look into the social causes attended by the 3.5 Collective and whether the petitioners are members in The 3.5
Collective or not? The 3.5 Collective might be a civil society organization, but they are not the State and cannot represent the State. Further, either
The 3.5 Collective or its members or the petitioners cannot dictate the Court to direct the State to prefer an appeal.
As stated supra, Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to present an
appeal to the High Court an original or appellate order passed by any Court other than High Court, or passed by the Court of Sessions in Revision.
Admittedly, the petitioners are not the complainants/informants in the present case. Similarly, they are not the victims also. Therefore, the question of
invoking Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code also does not arise.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are keenly interested in this matter and are following the
proceedings of the case since its publication in the media and, therefore, they are interested. He would further submit that earlier many unwanted
news items were published as regards the present case such as, attempt to withdraw the charge sheet from the records of the case by the then
Superintendent of Police, Imphal West along with one senior advocate. Merely because the petitioners are keenly watching the case based on the
publication, they cannot be termed as parties to the proceedings like victims. Further, the petitioners were not included within the meaning of victim,
which is defined under Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Victim means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason
of the act or omission for which accused person has been charged and the expression victim includes his or her guardian or legal heir. The word
“victim†has been defined in the Declaration of the United Nation as under:
“Victims means persons who, individually or collectively have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss
or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within member States,
including those laws prescribing criminal abuse of power.â€
From a close analysis of the aforesaid definitions of the “victimsâ€, it is obvious that even the definition of the word “victim†has been
given a wide meaning in the Declaration of the United Nation, but the legislature has given a very narrow meaning. Thus, the question that arises for
consideration is, whether the petitioners who are not included in the definition of “victim†as per Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code
can maintain the appeal against the acquittal in view of the amendment to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code and as per Section 2(wa) of
the Criminal Procedure Code. The answer to the question is that the petitioners are not the victims and, therefore, they are not entitled to maintain the
appeal against the judgment of acquittal. On a careful consideration of the parameters of the appeal against the judgment of acquittal, it can be
discerned that there is no material to grant special leave to the petitioners, inasmuch the petitioners cannot be treated as a victims within the definition
of Section 2(wa) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the right of appeal is retained in the hands of the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that though the Special Public Prosecutor of ND & PS Court, Manipur has submitted grounds of
appeal to the Public Prosecutor (District), Government of Manipur on 21.12.2020 against the judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case
No.100 of 2018, no action is seen to be initiated to file the appeal. Nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners to show that despite
preparation of the grounds of appeal by the Special Public Prosecutor of ND & PS Court, Manipur and submitting to the Public Prosecutor (District),
the State has not filed the appeal. Therefore, special leave may be granted to file the appeal.
Courts cannot direct the State Government to prefer an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. There is no procedure contemplated in filing the
appeal by the State against the acquittal judgment. The Public Prosecutor (District) has to give opinion to file an appeal against the acquittal judgment
first. In this case, the plea of the petitioners that despite the Special Public Prosecutor of ND&PS Court, Manipur submitting the grounds of appeal to
the Public Prosecutor (District), the State has not preferred appeal cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioners cannot force the State to prefer an
appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020. As stated supra, Section 378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers the State
Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to file an appeal to the High Court from the order passed by any Court other than High Court.
The so-called The 3.5 Collective is an organization having no legal entity. They are not the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They
are not entitled to represent the State. The petitioners have filed the petition seeking special leave in the individual capacity. Hence, they have no locus
standi to prefer the appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018. Further, the criminal appeal
cannot be preferred in the representative capacity.
At this juncture, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent submitted that after a prolonged trial, the fourth respondent and six others were
acquitted by the Special Court and the petitioners are mercenary and unscrupulous individuals who are employed and hired by some influential groups.
It is also the plea of the fourth respondent that since the inception of the present case, the petitioners and their hired men always interfered and
disturbed the Court‟s proceedings and caused chaos in the public. Though there is no basis in the submission of the fourth respondent at present, the
said submission of the fourth respondent cannot be thrown out lightly.
As stated supra, The 3.5 Collective though an organisation is not a legal entity to question the judgment dated 17.12.2020 as they are not the State.
In National Commission of Women v. State of Delhi and another, (2010) 12 SCC 599, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as under:
“An appeal is a creature of a statute and cannot lie under any inherent power. This Court does not undoubtedly grant leave to the appeal under the
discretionary power conferred under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the behest of the State or an affected private individual but to permit
anybody or an organization pro-bono public to file an appeal would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice
system. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the SLP itself is not maintainable.â€
In the instant case, as stated supra, the petitioners who are individuals seeking leave to file appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020
if granted it would be a dangerous doctrine and would cause utter confusion in the criminal justice system. Further, the petitioners have failed to
produce any authoritative pronouncement of the highest Court to show that they are entitled to seek special leave to appeal against the acquittal
judgment.
The law does not permit the private individuals like the petitioners, who are not victims or informants, to carry an appeal against the acquittal
judgment. Likewise, the organization like The 3.5 Collective also cannot carry an appeal against the acquittal judgment on the ground that they are
fighting for a social cause. Ultimately, it is the State to prefer an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in Special Trial Case
No.100 of 2018 and this Court cannot force the State to file an appeal against the acquittal judgment dated 17.12.2020.
For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that no legal right is made out by the petitioners to seek special leave to appeal against the
judgment dated 17.12.2020 passed in the Special Trial Case No.100 of 2018. The issue raised in answered accordingly. Accordingly, Miscellaneous
Case No.15 of 2020 is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, Miscellaneous Case No.15 of 2020 is dismissed.