AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabina, J.—Petitioner had faced trial in a complaint case under Sections 3(k), (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Trial Court vide judgment dated 23.04.2009 acquitted the petitioner of the charges framed against him. Aggrieved against the said judgment, State preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was allowed by the Sessions Court vide impugned order dated 10.08.2010 and the case was remanded back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that appeal was not maintainable before the Sessions Court as the same could have been filed before this Court u/s 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Full Bench of this Court in M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. Vs. M/s. Atma Tube Products Ltd. and Others, wherein it was held as under:-
The ''complainant'' in a complaint-case who is also a ''victim'' and the ''victim'' other than a ''complainant'' in such case, shall have remedy of appeal against acquittal u/s 378(4) only, except where he/she succeeds in establishing the guilt of an accused but is aggrieved at the conviction for a lesser offence or imposition of an inadequate compensation, for which he/she shall be entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the Code.
Learned counsel has further placed reliance on decision of Apex Court in Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein it was held as under:-
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 u/s 16(1)(1A) read with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the Rules if 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.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, complaint was filed by the State. Petitioner was acquitted of the charges framed against him. State had the remedy to file an appeal before this Court u/s 378(4). Appeal filed by the State before the Sessions Court was not maintainable. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.08.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on behalf of the Fast Track Court is set aside. However, State/complainant would be at liberty to file an appeal u/s 378(4), if so advised.