The State sought leave to appeal against the trial court's acquittal of the respondent for robbery. The High Court found material contradictions in the complainant's testimony and non-production of independent witnesses, held no prima facie case for interference was shown, and dismissed the leave petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~28
versus
AJAY KUMAR JATAV .....Respondent
Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
the respondent came and stood in front of him and took out one Ustra and snatched his mobile phone. It is alleged that the accused, after snatching the mobile phone of the complainant, started running and was caught after hue and cry was made by the complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 CRL.L.P. 101/2019 18:08:27
Page 2 of 4
investigation but they did not join and left the place of incident. 10. It is an admitted case that no notice under Section 100(4) of the CrPC was given to any of the persons who had refused to join investigation nor was their names or addresses noted by the Police Officials.
v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar : (2008) 9 SCC 475 held as under:
“ 19. Now, Section 378 of the Code provides for filing of appeal by the State in case of acquittal. Sub-section (3) declares that no appeal “shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court”. It is, therefore, necessary for the State where it is aggrieved by an order of acquittal recorded by a Court of Session to file an application for leave to appeal as required by sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Code. It is also true that an appeal can be registered and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 CRL.L.P. 101/2019 18:08:27
Page 3 of 4
heard on merits by the High Court only after the High Court grants leave by allowing the application filed under subsection (3) of Section 378 of the Code.
20. In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.
21. It cannot be laid down as an abstract proposition of law of universal application that each and every petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal recorded by a trial court must be allowed by the appellate court and every appeal must be admitted and decided on merits. But it also cannot be overlooked that at that stage, the court would not enter into minute details of the prosecution evidence and refuse leave observing that the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court could not be said to be “perverse” and, hence, no leave should be granted.”
(emphasis supplied)
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2024 “SS”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARMINDER KAUR Signing Da te:0 6.11.2024 CRL.L.P. 101/2019 18:08:27
Page 4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State made out a prima facie case warranting grant of leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 392/397 IPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh PoyarekarRelied on¶13
(2008) 9 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
State of NCT of Delhi
Ajay Kumar Jatav
Amit Mahajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
