Balancing Jurisdiction and Justice: Revisiting Lalu Prasad Yadav and the Limits of State Appeals.


06 November 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   FIR >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court has, through a detailed judgment, revisited the delicate question of whether the State Government has the right to file an appeal against acquittal in a case investigated by the CBI. A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India NV Ramana was hearing a plea related to the 2003 murder case of political leader Ramavatar Jaggi, in which Amit Jogi, son of the then Chhattisgarh Chief Minister, was acquitted.

The State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI, and the de-facto complainant, Satish Jaggi (son of the deceased), had approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court of Chhattisgarh's orders which held their appeals to be non-maintainable. The core controversy centered around the applicability of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the interpretation laid down by the three-judge Bench in Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 1.

 

 

The High Court had placed reliance upon Lalu Prasad Yadav to reject the application for leave to appeal filed by the State Government, holding that in a case investigated by the CBI, it is only the Central Government that is competent to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(2) of the CrPC. An appeal by the de-facto complainant under the proviso to Section 372, and the delayed appeal by the CBI, were also rejected.

Arguments and Statutory Interpretation:

Appeal counsel appearing for the appellant-State argued that the facts in the instant case were different, inasmuch as the FIR had been initially registered and investigated by the State Police, and only thereafter, on a request made by the State Government, was the case transferred to the CBI. It was thus contended that the bar in Section 378(2) of the Code, pertaining to State appeals, ought not to apply because the genesis of the case lay with the State machinery.

On the contrary, the respondent-accused argued that the impugned order of the High Court was in consonance with the ratio and properly applied the principles enunciated in Lalu Prasad Yadav.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings:

The Bench, upon analyzing the statutory scheme, has reaffirmed the ratio decidendi of Lalu Prasad Yadav. The Court has noted that the legislature has consciously created a mutually exclusive division under Section 378 in that while the State Government has the right to appeal in ordinary cases, the offences investigated by the CBI or any central agency fall exclusively within the domain of the Central Government.

However, the Court recognised that where the investigation starts with the State Police and is subsequently transferred to the CBI, the issue may require further consideration in an appropriate case. Since in the present case, the CBI itself had filed an appeal-assuming delay-the Court felt it appropriate that the delay be condoned to ensure substantial justice was done.

Victim's Right to Appeal and the Temporal Scope of Section 372 Proviso:

The Court has further clarified that the right of a victim to appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is prospective. Referring to Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2019) 2 SCC 752, it reiterated that this right arises only in respect of orders passed after 31 December 2009. Since the acquittal in the instant case was dated 31 May 2007, the de-facto complainant’s appeal was rightly dismissed.

Outcome and Implications: 

The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeals by the State and complainant, condoned the delay of 1373 days by CBI in filing the leave to appeal and sent back the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. It also allowed Amit Jogi to be heard at the leave stage having regard to the extraordinary delay and sensitivity of the matter. This judgment thus reiterates the exclusivity of authority of the Central Government in appeals from CBI investigations and clarifies that procedural technicalities must give way to the imperative need for justice in cases involving grave allegations. It strikes a fine balance between procedural discipline and judicial discretion by reiterating that while the law on appeal under Section 378(2) is settled, exceptional facts may justify pragmatic judicial intervention.


Section 120B., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 193., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 218., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 324., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 372., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 378., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  

Arms Act, 1959