Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court

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