Can State Appeal in CBI-Prosecuted Cases When Probe Began with State Police? Supreme Court Leaves Question Open, Allows CBI Plea in Raipur Murder Case
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, held that a State Government has no authority to challenge an acquittal in a criminal case prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, consistent with its earlier decision in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 1. The Bench left open the issue of whether an appeal could be maintained when an investigation is first conducted by the State Police and later transferred to the CBI. In connection with the 2003 murder-conspiracy case in Raipur, the Court allowed the CBI’s delayed plea to seek leave to appeal and directed the Chhattisgarh High Court to consider the matter on merits, dismissing the appeals filed by the State and the complainant.
The matter arose from a violent incident on 4 June 2003 in Raipur, during which a political leader was shot dead by unidentified assailants. The local police registered an FIR under Sections 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and after investigation, filed a chargesheet under Sections 341, 427, 302, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The trial was registered before the Sessions Judge, Raipur.
The complainant’s son, dissatisfied with the police investigation, requested the State Government to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. On 3 January 2004, the Government of Chhattisgarh issued a notification transferring the case, and the Central Government accepted the request. The CBI registered a fresh case and alleged that a conspiracy was planned to disrupt a political rally by targeting the deceased. The agency filed a chargesheet under Sections 120-B read with 302, 324, 427, 193, and 218 of the IPC, naming multiple accused, including the son of the then Chief Minister.
The trial court convicted 28 accused but acquitted the respondent on the ground of lack of evidence. The State of Chhattisgarh sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC, which the High Court rejected, holding that the State could not appeal in a case prosecuted by the CBI. The CBI’s separate plea for condonation of delay in filing an appeal was dismissed, and an application by the de-facto complainant under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was also held not maintainable. The appellants argued that the State retained locus as the case was initially registered and partly investigated by its police, while the respondent maintained that the High Court’s orders were consistent with law.
The Court observed that “on a threadbare perusal of the three-Judge Bench judgment in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr., this Court extensively considered and discussed the provisions of law involved in the matter i.e., Sections 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898/Section 378 of the CrPC, 1973.”
It stated that “the legislature has maintained a mutually exclusive division in the matter of appeal from a judgment and 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) is the Central Government and the authority of the State Government in relation to such cases has been excluded.”
The Bench recorded that “applying the ratio of the above judgment, the leave to appeal application filed by the State of Chhattisgarh would not be maintainable.” It added, “we see no reason to take a different view.”
The Court further stated: “We are of the view that the question as to whether the State Government can independently file an appeal against acquittal of the accused in a case which was initially registered by the local police and later tried on the chargesheet filed by the CBI, may be examined and deliberated in a suitable case involving the following situations: (a) the complaint was lodged by the State Government or its officers; (b) investigation was partly done by State Police; (c) prosecution was commenced at the instance of the State Government; (d) the State Government has a stake in the criminal proceedings; and (e) the jurisdiction of the CBI had been invoked at the instance of the State Government.”
It recorded, “we feel that ends of justice will be served by condoning the delay occasioned in filing of the application seeking leave to appeal by the CBI and requiring the High Court to consider the said application on its own merits.” The Court added that “in a case of such a sensitive nature, the High Court should have adopted a pragmatic and liberal approach and considered the matter on merits, rather than dismissing the leave to appeal application filed by the CBI simply on the ground of delay.”
Concerning the complainant’s appeal, the Court observed that “the right conferred upon a victim to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC arises only in respect of orders of acquittal passed after 31 December 2009.”
The Court directed, “the delay occasioned in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal by the CBI against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent-Amit Jogi is hereby condoned. The matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration of the application for grant of leave to appeal filed by the CBI, on merits.”
“Since we have condoned the significant delay occasioned by the CBI in filing the application for grant of leave to appeal, we consider it expedient, in the interest of justice, to permit the respondent an opportunity of hearing in the application seeking leave to appeal. The de-facto complainant as well as the State of Chhattisgarh shall be impleaded as parties in the CBI’s application seeking leave to appeal and would be entitled to advance their respective submissions before the High Court.”
Case Title: State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1285
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1927 of 2014 & Connected Matters
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta
