Court No. - 79
Case :- GOVERNMENT APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 59 of 2003 Appellant :- State Of U.P.
Respondent :- Hariom Mittal And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
This propose appeal by State of U.P. under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed against Hariom Mittal and Mahipal Singh against judgment of acquittal dated 11.7.2002 passed by Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Mathura, in Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2001, Hariom Mittal and others Vs. State of U.P., arising out of order dated 20.7.2001 passed in Criminal Case No. 7 of 1992, State Vs. Hariom Mittal and others, u/s 3 of R.P. (U.P.) Act, P.S. G.R.P., Mathura.
Perusal of judgment reveals that a complaint was filed before the Court of Magistrate by Inspector RPF, K.P.S. Sekhawat, for offence punishable u/s 3 of R.P. (U.P.) Act for possession of CST-9 plates of Railway department being stolen and apprehended by Railway officer. This truck was being driven by Chandra Prakash and Mahipal Singh was present in it. Upon enquiry and investigation it came to notice that the material loaded in the Truck was being brought from M/s Mittal Iron and Steel Works, Naraich, Hathras Road, Agra, and it was to be supplied to Krishna Iron Foundry, Industrial Area, Mathura. This truck was loaded with material of railway department. Hence complaint was filed and the trial court concluded vide judgment dated 20.7.2001 of conviction against Hariom Mittal and Mahipal Sngh. Criminal Appeal No. 112 of 2001 was filed by convict appellant Hariom Mittal and Mahipal Singh. It was decided by the impugned judgment of acquittal. Thereby setting aside judgment of conviction resulting acquittal of accused persons.
Admittedly, this trial was based on the basis of complaint filed by Inspector RPF. Central Government establishment has been given power of investigation.
Section 378 Cr.P.C. provides that (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub- sections (3) and (5),
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Sessions from an order or acquittal passed by Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946 ), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub- section (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal.
In the present case, whether the Central Government has directed to file this appeal or not, is not on the record. State of U.P. has filed this appeal, whereas right to appeal under sub- section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. remains with Central Government and the Central Government has not applied for appeal. Hence this application for leave for filing appeal is rejected.
However, Central Government, if it desires, will not be abided by this order of rejection.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Pcl