The Full Bench allowed the interlocutory application seeking leave to prefer an appeal against an acquittal ordered on 07.12.2017, ruling that no separate leave is needed under proviso to Section 372 CrPC as the acquittal occurred after 31.12.2009.
Interlocutory application allowed; Registry directed to register accompanying appeal and list it.
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.
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010097962018
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.L.P. 52/2018
1:SRI MOHAN DAS
S/O LATE BHUMIDHAR DAS, VILL. SUTPARA, P.S. SALBARI, DIST. BAKSA, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN 600016
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM.
2:SRI JUGESH PATGIRI S/O LATE CHANDRA KANTA PATGIRI R/O VILL. LAWKHOWA P.S. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 600016
3:SRI KHAGENDRA NATH PATGIRI S/O LATE CHANDRA KANTA PATGIRI R/O VILL. LAWKHOWA P.S. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 600016
4:SRI HARAKANTA PATGIRI S/O LATE CHANDRA KANTA PATGIRI R/O VILL. LAWKHOWA P.S. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA
Page No.# 2/4
BTAD ASSAM PIN 600016
5:SRI HEMANTA TALUKDAR S/O LATE GOPAL TALUKDAR R/O VILL. LAWKHOWA P.S. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 600016
6:SRI UMESH TALUKDAR S/O LATE GOPAL TALUKDAR R/O VILL. LAWKHOWA P.S. SALBARI DIST. BAKSA BTAD ASSAM PIN 60001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N UDDIN
Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM
Linked Case : /
1:MOHAN DAS
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
Advocate for the Petitioner : Advocate for the Respondent :
Page No.# 3/4
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI
ORDER
Date : 09-05-2019
AM Bujor Barua, J
Heard Mr. N Uddin, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. Although the cause list shows the names of Mr. G Kakoti, Mr. P Thakuria and Mr. D Khakhalary to be the counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 6, but when the matter was called for the first time, none had appeared. We requested the learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to pass the information to the aforesaid three counsel informing them that the matter is being taken up. But inspite of the same being sent, the learned counsel still chooses not to appear.
By the interlocutory application leave had been sought for preferring the accompanying appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2017 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta in Sessions Case No.18/2015 acquitting the accused person therein.
The requirement under the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.PC had already been settled by the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through the legal representative Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 2018 SC 5206.
By the said judgment, the Supreme Court had held that in the event, the judgment under which the acquittal was granted was passed after 31.12.2009 when the proviso to Section 372 Cr.PC was incorporated, no leave is required for preferring such appeal. In the instant case, we find that the accompanying appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.12.2017 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Barpeta by which the accused persons therein were acquitted. As the judgment of acquittal is subsequent to 31.12.2009, we are of the view that following the propositions laid down by the Supreme Court, no separate leave is required for filling the appeal.
With the above observation, the interlocutory application stands allowed.
Registry to register the accompanying appeal and list the same.
Page No.# 4/4
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave is required under proviso to Section 372 of CrPC to prefer an appeal against an acquittal judgment passed after 31.12.2009.
Whether the interlocutory application for leave to appeal stands allowed.
Whether the accompanying appeal against acquittal requires separate leave.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohan Das
The State of Assam
Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Mir Alfaz Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
