Gyan Chandra Gupta vs State & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4241 Del

                  * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                 +Crl. L.P. NO. 61/2004 & Crl.M.A.No. 5016/2004
%
                                                                            13.09.2010

GYAN CHANDRA GUPTA                                          ... Petitioner
                                Through: Mr Sanjiv Kr. Advocate.

                Versus

STATE & ORS.                                                  ... Respondents
                                Through: Mr. S.M. Rama Chandra, Advocate for
                                R-2 & R-3

                                                 Date of Reserve: 13th July, 2010
                                              Date of Order: September 13, 2010


JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?     Yes.

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?                                    Yes.

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?                            Yes.

JUDGMENT

This leave to appeal has been preferred by the complainant in FIR

No. 138/92 PS Sadar Bazar as the accused persons were acquitted by the

Appellate Court vide order dated 27th January, 2004. Under Section 378

Sub Section 2 Cr.P.C., an appeal against acquittal by the Court of Sessions

whether as Trial Court or as Appellate Court can be preferred by the State

Government after obtaining a leave to appeal. No right has been vested

by the Legislature in complainant to prefer an appeal against the acquittal

passed by the Court of Sessions to the High Court. A complainant

however, has a right to file a revision. In the present case, the

complainant has not preferred revision but has preferred an appeal with

this application for leave to appeal. In view of judgment of Supreme Court

in Jagbir & Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 1998 (SC) 3130 and provisions of

Cr.P.C., an appeal filed by complainant is not maintainable. There is no

request from the appellant for conversion of this appeal into a revision.

However, even the jurisdiction of revision can be exercised by the High

Court only in the exceptional circumstances when there is a glaring defect

in the procedure or there is manifest error on a point of law resulting into

flagrant miscarriage of justice. I, therefore, consider that the present

appeal filed by the complainant is not maintainable and the application for

leave to appeal is liable to be dismissed, the same is hereby dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

September 13, 2010 vn