'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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