Madhya Pradesh High Court Faults State For 'Blindly' Filing Appeal Before Wrong Forum, Imposes Costs

The Madhya Pradesh High Court slammed the State for filing a revision 'blindly without knowing the law', observing that an appeal against acquittal in a case instituted on a private complaint of a forest officer ought to have been filed before the High Court and not before the First Appellate Court. The bench of Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh imposed a cost of ₹10,000 upon the State, holding that the appeal had been filed "hastily without proper application of mind". "It is seen that on the date of filing of appeal was 2.5.2011. Against an acquittal an appeal where a case is instituted on a private complaint of Forest Officer should have been filed before this court i.e. High Court under Section 378 (4) of C.P.C. and not the First Appellate Court, Panna, M.P. Even in memo of appeal nothing has been explained how that order was bad in law. Therefore it seems that the appeal by the State was drafted hastily without proper application of mind right from the Law Department if that was involved or office of learned Advocate General if that was involved and filing of appeal blindly without knowing the law is already a big strain to the time and the expenses of the State as well as Courts. Therefore this revision is dismissed as not maintainable but subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the State of M.P. through Forest Range Officer". The revision was filed challenging the judgment passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge which had dismissed the State's appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability. The case originated from an alleged offence on December 12, 2006, in which the respondent was found with four units of Sagun (teak) wood. The trial court, by judgment of November 30, 2010, acquitted the respondent of charges for Restricted Entry in Sanctuary (Section 27), Destruction in Sanctuary (Section 29), Restricted Activities in National Parks (Section 35(6)), Animal Articles or trophies (Section 44) and Restriction on Transportation (Section 48A) of the Wild Animal Protection Act, 1972. However, the co-accused was convicted and sentenced for the same offences. The counsel for the State argued that the appellate court ought to have examined the merits of the case and that the acquittal of the respondent was improper. The court noted that an appeal against acquittal, in a case instituted on a private complaint of a forest officer, should have been filed directly before the High Court under Section 378(4) of CrPC and not before the First Appellate Court. The bench observed that the appeal was filed on May 2, 2011, but no explanation was provided in the memorandum of appeal as to how the trial court's order was legally flawed. The bench held that the appeal appeared to have been drafted and filed "hastily without proper application of mind ". The bench expresses displeasure over the State filing appeals "blindly without knowing the law", which places an unnecessary strain on judicial time and public resources. The bench therefore held that the criminal revision was not maintainable. Thus, the court directed the State, through the Forest Range Officer, to pay a cost of ₹10,000. The Court also granted liberty to the State to recover the amount personally from the officers responsible for filing the incorrect appeal. Thus, the revision was dismissed. Case Title: The State of MP v Jugal Kishore [CRR-2105-2013]Click here to read/download the Order

Madhya Pradesh High Court Faults State For 'Blindly' Filing Appeal Before Wrong Forum, Imposes Costs

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags