1 2025:CGHC:8900 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 269 of 2004 1 - State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus 1 - Deleted (Bhagwat ) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 29-10-2009. 2 - Bhanwar Singh S/o Kumar Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Gram Khamtarai, District - Raipur (M.P.) 3. Deleted (Shyam Lal) Dated 07-03-2014. 4 - Bisahu S/o Pusau Aged About 40 Years R/o Gram Khamtarai, District Raipur (M.P.) 5 - Dorelal S/o Bhagwan Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Devbaloda, District Durg (M.P.). 6 - Baijnath Sahu S/o Jhumaklal Sahu Aged About 39 Years R/o Bundeli Police Station Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.). 7 - Deleted ( P. Apparao) In Compliance Of Honble Court Order Dated 03-02-2025. 8 - Mahendra S/o Eknath Aged About 24 Years R/o Pahadi Chowk, Police Station - Ganj, Raipur. 9 - Budhram S/o Ramkishan Aged About 24 Years R/o Naharpara, Police Station Ganj, District – Raipur. 10 - R. Surayanarayan Murti S/o Bheemshankeram Aged About 40 Years R/o Police Station Amlapuram, District Godawari, At Present - Panchsheel Nagar Charoda. 11 - R.B. S/o Late Teekaram Aged About 40 Years R/o Nawadhpur, Police Station - Etmalpur, District - Agra. At Present - S.I.B. Gardanreech Calcutta. ... Respondent(s) For State/appellant : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. GA For Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 11. : Mr. Santam Awasthi, Advocate HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.05.24 13:06:32 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 20/02/2025 This appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh under Section 378(1) of CrPC preferred against the judgment dated 18.03.1996 passed in Criminal Case No. 2093/1990 by the Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur, CG. 2. Mr. Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents raises an objection of this appeal by State of Madhya Pradesh is not maintainable as the prosecution was launch by Union of India through Railway Protection Police Station Raipur, CG. State of Madhya Pradesh does not have jurisdiction and authority to file the instant criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) of CrPC. There is no documents available on record as to whether the Union of India has instructed the public prosecutor of State of Madhya Pradesh to file this appeal. Therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. He submits that no instruction has been received by Union of India through State of Madhya Pradesh to file this appeal. This appeal was filed in the year 1996 with application for leave to appeal which was subsequently, Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh and after the leave was granted which registered as criminal appeal No. 269 of 2004 before this Court as record was received. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and another Vs. State of Bihar and another with Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2010) 5 SCC 1 has held in paragraph 35 to 34 as under:- “35. We have surveyed Section 378 in its entirety to have complete conspectus of the provision. The opening words - "save as otherwise provided in sub- section (2)" - are in the nature of exception intended to exclude the class of cases mentioned in sub-section (2) out of operation of the body of sub-section (1). These words have no other meaning in the context but to qualify the operation of sub- section (1) and take out of its purview two types of cases referred in sub-section (2), namely, (i) the cases in which offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under 1946 Act and (ii) the cases in which the offence has been investigated by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than 1973 Code. By 3 construing Section 378 in a manner that permits appeal from an order of acquittal by the state government in every case, except two class of cases mentioned in sub- section (2), full effect would be given to the exception (clause) articulated in the opening words. 36. As noticed above, the words - "save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" - were added in 1973 Code; Section 417 of 1898 Code did not have these words. It is familiar rule of construction that all changes in wording and phrasing may be presumed to have been deliberate and with the purpose to limit, qualify or enlarge the pre-existing law as the changes of the words employ. Any construction that makes exception (clause) with which section opens unnecessary and redundant should be avoided. 37. If we give to Section 378, sub-sections (1) and (2), the interpretation which the state government claims; we would have to say that no matter that complaint was not lodged by the state government or its officers; that investigation was not done by its police establishment; that prosecution was neither commenced nor continued by the state government; that public prosecutor was not appointed by the state government; that the state government had nothing to do with the criminal case; that all steps from launching of prosecution until its logical end were taken by the Delhi Police Special Establishment and yet the state government may file an appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 378(1). That would be rendering the exception (clause) reflected in the opening words - "save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2)" - redundant, meaningless and unnecessary. If the Legislature had intended to give the right of appeal under Section 378(1) to the state government in all cases of acquittal including the class of cases referred to in sub-section (2), it would not have been necessary to incorporate the exception (clause) in the opening words. This objective could have been achieved without use of these words as erstwhile Section 417 of 1898 Code enabled the state government to appeal from all cases of acquittal while in two types of cases mentioned in sub-section (2) thereof, appeal from the order of acquittal could be filed under the direction of central government as well.” 4. Admittedly, no instruction was given by the Union of India filed this appeal through the public prosecutor of State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). Therefore, in light of judgment of above, this criminal appeal is not maintainable is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE Pawan