VINOD CHANDRAN,J. - (1.)The above unnumbered criminal appeals against the orders of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, filed by the State with delay, are placed before us for considering the applications for condonation of delay. The party respondents who appeared in such applications raise a preliminary objection insofar as the Public Prosecutor not having been specifically directed by the State Government to file an appeal as mandated under Sec. 378(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1978. It is the argument of the learned Counsel that an appeal to the Court of Sessions from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate, in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences can be filed by the Public Prosecutor only if it is so directed by the District Magistrate as is provided in Sec. 378(1)(a). Similarly as per Sec. 378(1)(b) the Public Prosecutor can present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than High Court, not being an order under clause(a), only if the State Government so directs. The Public Prosecutor appointed under Sec. 24 is so appointed for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings on behalf of the appropriate Government in the High Court. The power is only to conduct the cases and not to take a decision to file an appeal under Sec. 378(1) which decision has to be taken by the Government itself. Admittedly there is no such direction issued by the Government to institute the captioned appeals. But the Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial and in some cases the Investigating Officer, has expressed opinion that an appeal should be filed from the order of acquittal on the basis of which the above appeals have been instituted.
(2.)We heard the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.S.U. Nazer and Sri. Nicholas Joseph, Special Government Pleader (Criminal) for the State and from among the Counsel for the party respondents Sri.Dheerendra Krishnan and Sri. Dinesh Mathew Murikan argued. Sri. Dheerendra Krishnan placed before us the following decisions 1985 (1) SCC 342 (Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab ), 1982 CriLJ 301 (State of Kerala v. Krishnan), 2019 KHC 737 (Benny P. Jacob and another v. Rajesh Kumar Unnithan) and 2010 (5) SCC 1 (Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Bihar) and Sri Dinesh Mathew Murikan relied on 1958 CriLJ 973 (Union Territory of Tripura v. Marfat Ali), AIR 1959 Allahabad 751 (Harwari Lal v. State ), AIR 1965 Rajasthan 196 (State of Rajasthan v. Pukh Ra), 1977 CriLJ 853 (Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prafulla Majhi), 1982 CriLJ 1120 (Mohammed v. State of Kerala) and 2009 CriLJ 4413 (K.Ramachandran, v. N.Rajan). It is argued that the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in 1983 CriLJ 466 State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh was reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. But the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would also indicate that there is requirement for a direction from the State Government to institute an appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court only interfered with the roving enquiry conducted by the High Court to verify whether the direction issued was proper or not.
(3.)It is pointed out that the principle laid down by a Full Bench of the very same High Court in 1981 CriLJ 1069 Lal Singh V State of Punjab followed in Mohinder Singh by a Division Bench of that Court, stands undisturbed. It is also pointed out that Sec. 417 of the erstwhile Cr.PC as also Sec. 378 of the 1973 Code, mandated every appeal from an order of acquittal to be instituted only on directions issued by the State Government. Even when the provision stood amended by Cr.PC Amendment Act, 2005, those appeals from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court or an order of acquittal passed by Court of Sessions in revision, has to be filed only if the State Government so directs; leaving the decision to file appeals from orders of acquittal passed by Magistrates in cognizable and non-bailable offences to the District Magistrates. This reinforces the stand of the party respondents who have been acquitted of the charges leveled against them by a competent Court in a properly constituted trial; the appeal from which order is a prerogative right of the State Government and not of the Public Prosecutor appointed in the High Court. The appeals are hence not maintainable, argues Counsel on the basis of the precedents from the various High Courts and the Supreme Court cited herein above.