Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Karnataka High Court Declares State’s Appeal ‘Non-Est’ Due to Jurisdictional Error”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment delivered  by The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Rachaiyah, the Karnataka High Court addressed a critical jurisdictional issue, ultimately declaring the State’s appeal “non-est” due to a jurisdictional error in the case of ”State of Karnataka v. Malleshnaika.”

The case revolved around the acquittal of the respondent, Malleshnaika, who had faced charges under Sections 504, 324, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The State, dissatisfied with the acquittal, had filed an appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). However, the Hon’ble Court pointed out that the State’s appeal should have been filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C, which is the appropriate provision for such cases.

Justice Rachaiyah’s observation emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures, stating that “the State cannot exercise the jurisdiction meant for the victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C when a separate provision, Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C, distinctly confers rights to the State for filing an appeal against acquittal.”

Consequently, the High Court declared the appeal filed by the State as “non-est” in law. However, it reserved the liberty for the State to file a Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal using the correct legal provision.

The judgment also commended the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, Sri. Javeed S., and directed the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority to pay him a remuneration of Rs. 3,000 for his valuable contribution to the case.

This judgment serves as a notable reminder of the significance of precise legal procedures in the criminal justice system and their impact on the course of justice.

Date of Decision: 05 September  2023 

STATE OF KARNATAKA  Vs MALLESHNAIKA

Latest Legal News