Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

Similar News