SUBHASH CHAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner assailing an order dated 4th February 2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner about maintainability of the appeal. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the Food Inspector under provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 filed a complaint against the petitioner. In that complaint case, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned MM. Against the order of acquittal, the Delhi Administration preferred a criminal appeal under Section 378(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Sessions Judge. The petitioner raised objections that since the petitioner was prosecuted in a complaint case, the appeal would lie only under Section 378(4) of the Code against acquittal of the petitioner and not under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge turned down this objection on the ground that Section 378(1) of the Code was applicable in respect of cognizable and non -bailable offences whether the case was a complaint case or State case and Section 378(4) of the Code would not be attracted since he considered that an appeal against the order of acquittal in a complaint case would lie to High Court in respect of offences not specified in Section 378(1) of the Code i.e. non -cognizable and bailable offences.

(2.) THIS petition raises two issues; (i) whether the State can prefer an appeal in a complaint case against acquittal of the accused; and (ii) when the State prefers an appeal against the order of acquittal in a complaint case whether Section 378(4) would be applicable or Section 378(1) would be applicable.

(3.) THE competence of the State Government to file an appeal against acquittal in a complaint case is not dealt with by section 378 of the Code. The State has a vested interest in maintaining law and order and in punishing the criminals. When the State finds that a person has been wrongly acquitted by the trial court, the State has a right to prefer an appeal against such wrong acquittals. It is not necessary that the State's right to appeal is restricted only to those cases that are initiated for trial before the courts on police reports. There are several Acts where law provides that complaint should be filed before the court. For example, Customs Act, Food Adulteration Act are such two statutes. The State has high stake in preventing offences under above acts and it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that the food is not adulterated and there is no illegal trafficking of goods i.e. smuggling affecting economy of the State. The State has a right to appeal against wrongful acquittal in all such cases.