Three-Judge Bench Upholds Central Government’s Exclusive Right to Appeal in CBI-Probed Cases but Remits CBI’s Challenge for Fresh Consideration

A three-Judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals arising from the acquittal of Amit Aishwarya Jogi in a 2003 murder case and the High Court’s refusal to entertain leave to appeal filed by the State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI and the de-facto complainant. The Bench examined the correctness of the three-Judge decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. and addressed whether the State could independently seek leave to appeal where investigation was subsequently taken over by the CBI.

The Court held that the ratio in Lalu Prasad Yadav remained good law and that Section 378 of the CrPC created a “mutually exclusive division” between the State and the Central Government in relation to appeals from acquittals in cases investigated by central agencies. The Court, however, took a pragmatic course on procedural grounds: it condoned the delay in the CBI’s application for leave to appeal and directed the High Court to decide the CBI’s petition on merits. The Court dismissed the State’s appeal against the High Court order and dismissed the de-facto complainant’s challenge to acquittal as not maintainable. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “54. In our opinion, the legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from an order of acquittal inasmuch as the competent authority to appeal from an order of acquittal in two types of cases referred to in sub-Section (2) of Section 378 of the CrPC is the Central Government and the authority of the State Government in relation to such cases has been excluded…” The judgment also quoted earlier reasoning that the opening words “save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)” were intended to qualify sub-section (1) and avoid rendering the exception redundant; as the Court noted, giving the State an unfettered right “would be rendering the exception (clause) ... redundant, meaningless and unnecessary.”

Background

The dispute arose from the killing of Ramavatar Jaggi on 4 June 2003 at Moudhapara, Raipur. An FIR (No. 104/2003) was initially registered by local police and a chargesheet followed; dissatisfied with the local probe, the State Government requested CBI investigation and the CBI registered RC-1(S)/2004/SCB-I/Delhi and filed a fresh chargesheet implicating, inter alia, Amit Aishwarya Jogi on charges including conspiracy and murder. The Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur convicted 28 persons but acquitted Amit Jogi on 31 May 2007 for insufficiency of evidence. The State filed an application under Section 378(3) CrPC for leave to appeal which the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected on 18 August 2011 relying on the Lalu Prasad Yadav principle; the CBI’s belated application for leave was also rejected on grounds of delay; the de-facto complainant’s attempt to convert revision into an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was held not maintainable because the proviso came into force on 31 December 2009 and the acquittal dated 31 May 2007 pre-dated that enabling provision. On appeal to this Court, the Bench found no reason to overrule Lalu Prasad Yadav but observed that a narrower question—whether a State may have recourse where investigation began with State police and later the CBI acted at State instance—could be considered in an appropriate case. In the present matters, the Court condoned the CBI’s delay, set aside the High Court’s order rejecting CBI’s plea for condonation, and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the CBI’s leave application on merits. The State’s appeal and the de-facto complainant’s appeals were dismissed. The Court permitted Amit Jogi an opportunity to be heard on the CBI’s leave application and directed impleading of the State and the de-facto complainant before the High Court.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1285; Criminal Appeal No. 1927 of 2014 and connected matters Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Not indicated in the reported bench judgment For the Respondent(s): Not indicated in the reported bench judgment