Delhi High Court
North Delhi Power Ltd vs Ravinder Singh on 12 October, 2015
Author: Siddharth Mridul
#R-23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12.10.2015
CRL.A.786/2008
NORTH DELHI POWER LTD ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Khatri,
Advocate for Mr. Vikram Nandrajog,
Advocate
versus
RAVINDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)
1. The present is an appeal under section 156 of the Electricity Act, 2003
assailing the judgment and order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Electricity Court, Rohini, Delhi in
Complaint Case No.994/2007.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
submits that the present appeal, as filed, is not maintainable in view of the
bar as contained in the provisions of section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Counsel would urge that in view of the said provision, no
appeal can be entertained against an acquittal by a trial court, except with the
prior leave of the High Court, as mandated by the said provision. Counsel
would invite my attention to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Subhash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported as
(2013) 2 SCC 17 in order to buttress his submission.
3. The Supreme Court's conclusions in this behalf are contained in para
19 and 23 of the report as follows:-
"19. Sub-section (4) of Section 378 makes provision for
appeal against an order of acquittal passed in a case
instituted upon complaint. It states that in such case if
the complainant makes an application to the High
Court and the High Court grants special leave to
appeal, the complainant may present such an appeal to
the High Court. This sub-section speaks of "special
leave" as against sub-section (3) relating to other
appeals which speaks of "leave". Thus, the
complainant's appeal against an order of acquittal is a
category by itself. The complainant could be a private
person or a public servant. This is evident from sub-
section (5) which refers to application filed for
"special leave" by the complainant. It grants six
months' period of limitation to a complainant who is a
public servant and sixty days in every other case for
filing application. Sub-section (6) is important. It states
that if in any case the complainant's application for
"special leave" under sub-section (4) is refused no
appeal from the order of acquittal shall lie under sub-
section (1) or under sub-section (2). Thus, if "special
leave" is not granted to the complainant to appeal
against an order of acquittal the matter must end there.
Neither the District Magistrate nor the State
Government can appeal against that order of acquittal.
The idea appears to be to accord quietus to the case in
such a situation.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
23. In view of the above, we conclude that a complainant
can file an application for special leave to appeal
against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the
High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions
Court. In the instant case the complaint alleging
offences punishable under Sections 16(1) & (1-A) read
with Section 7 of the PFA Act and the Rules is filed by
complainant Shri Jaiswal, Local Health Authority
through Delhi Administration. The appellant was
acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi. The complainant can
challenge the order of acquittal by filing an application
for special leave to appeal in the Delhi High Court and
not in the Sessions Court. Therefore, the impugned
order [Criminal Misc. Case No. 427 of 2009, decided
on 7-1-2011 (Del)] holding that this case is not
governed by Section 378(4) of the Code is quashed
and set aside. In the circumstances the appeal is
allowed."
4. Admittedly, no leave, as mandatorily required, was prayed for on
behalf of the appellant herein, from the High Court, before instituting the
present appeal. Consequently, the same as filed is not maintainable.
5. Dismissed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
OCTOBER 12, 2015/dn
