Disposed¶6

Cypirion Jacob v. Vijay John

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2024CRMP/787/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Leave under Section 378 CrPC not required for victim's appeal against acquittal; proviso to Section 372 CrPC (inserted w.e.f. 31.12.2009) confers substantive right; Mallikarjun Kodagali (2019) 2 SCC 752 relied on; acquittal under Sections 365, 328, 294, 506 IPC in ST No.115/2015 by Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur; CRMP disposed, case to be registered as Acquittal Appeal; High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur; Deepak Kumar Tiwari J.; Cypirion Jacob v. Vijay John.

What did the court decide?

CRMP disposed of; Registry directed to register the case as Acquittal Appeal; no notice required as the respondents are already represented; matter listed for hearing on admission of the acquittal appeal in the next week. ¶6

Cypirion Jacob Vs Vijay John — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶2

Order Sheet

¶3

CRMP No. 787 of 2017

¶4

Cypirion Jacob Versus Vijay John

¶5

4/1/2024	Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Counsel for the petitioner.
	Ms. Anmol Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. GA for the respective respondents. This CRMP has been filed for grant of leave under Section 378 of the Cr.PC, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.5.2017 passed by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in ST No.115/2015, whereby, the respondent/accused No.1 was acquitted of the charges under Sections 365, 328, 294 and 506 of the IPC. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the date of incident is 7.1.2014 and after the amendment was introduced w.e.f. 31.12.2009, Section 372 proviso Cr.PC was added. In the matter ofMallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2019) 2 SCC 752,it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that under the said proviso, the right of the victim is a substantive right and available against the order of acquittal rendered after 31.12.2009 and thus, leave to appeal is not required. Learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the other side

4/1/2024

Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Counsel for the petitioner.

Ms. Anmol Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anand Verma, Dy. GA for the respective respondents.
This CRMP has been filed for grant of leave under Section 378 of the
Cr.PC, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.5.2017 passed by
the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in ST No.115/2015,
whereby, the respondent/accused No.1 was acquitted of the charges
under Sections 365, 328, 294 and 506 of the IPC.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
the date of incident is 7.1.2014 and after the amendment was
introduced w.e.f. 31.12.2009, Section 372 proviso Cr.PC was added.
In the matter ofMallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through
Legal Representatives Vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2019) 2
**SCC 752,**it has been categorically held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
that under the said proviso, the right of the victim is a substantive
right and available against the order of acquittal rendered after
31.12.2009 and thus, leave to appeal is not required.
Learned counsel for the respondents appearing for the other side

¶6

	also supported the said legal proposition. In view of above, this Court is of the view that no leave to appeal is required in the case. The CRMP is disposed of. Registry is directed to register the case as Acquittal Appeal. Since the respondents are already represented, no notice is required. List the matter for hearing on admission of acquittal appeal in the next week.
	Sd/-
	( Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge
Shyna	.

Cypirion Jacob v. Vijay John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cypirion Jacob v. Vijay John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Agrawal Vs Mohan Lal Agrawal And Ors.

The State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Munnilal

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajendra Shukla @ Rajjan Shukla And Ors.

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Uttam Vyapari

Teekaram Sahu Vs Yogeshwar @ Bhagtram Sahu and Ors.

Anil Rai Vs State of Chhattisgarh