High Court Warns Uttarakhand's Law Secretary Over Mechanical Rejection Of Permission To File Appeal Against Acquittal In Lawyer’s Murder Case

The Uttarakhand High Court has criticized the Principal Secretary (Law) for mechanically rejecting permission to the State to file appeal against an order of acquittal in a case involving murder of a lawyer in broad daylight in 2017.

Being dissatisfied by the manner in which the case was dealt with by the senior judicial officer, the Division Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari and Justice Pankaj Purohit held,

“…we are aghast to learn that the proposals for appeal, received by the Law Department, are considered by junior officers, who have little or no experience of dealing with matters of public importance, and the highest officer in the department simply concurs with the view expressed by his junior officers. This is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer of the rank of senior Principal District and Sessions Judge, posted as Principal Secretary (Law).”

On 13.09.2017 at about 11:15 AM, when an Advocate based in Kotdwar city of Pauri Garhwal district came out of his house for going to the Court, he was shot by two unknown persons who were riding a motorcycle. While he was being taken to a higher centre for further treatment, he died on the way to Dehradun near Haridwar.

The investigation was initiated on the FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased, which was registered in Kotdwar Police Station on 14.09.2017. Based on the FIR, a case under Section 302, IPC was registered against the accused persons on whom suspicion was expressed by the deceased before he died.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302 and 120-B of the IPC against as many as seven persons. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal acquitted all the accused persons of the charges levelled against them.

The wife of the deceased filed instant appeal before the High Court under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC against the order of acquittal. On 12.07.2023, the Court directed counsel for the State to get instructions as to whether the State intends to file appeal against the impugned order.

On 18.08.2023, State Counsel produced one letter dated 22.07.2023, received by his office from District Magistrate, Garhwal. From perusal of the letter, it was revealed that State Government refused to grant permission to file appeal against order of acquittal recorded by trial Court.

Along with said letter, copy of order dated 12.07.2023, issued by Joint Secretary (Law), was enclosed, which revealed that Law Department of the State had turned down the proposal submitted by District Magistrate for filing appeal.

After going through the impugned judgment and after hearing the counsel for the appellant, the Court prima facie found that there was enough material for filing appeal against acquittal by the State Government.

The Court expressed its surprise that when on 12.07.2023, State Counsel was asked to get instructions as to whether State intends to file appeal, the very same day, the proposal for filing appeal submitted by District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal was turned down, which was pending with the Law Department since 11.05.2023.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to call for comments from the Joint Secretary (Law), Government of Uttarakhand. On 14.09.2023, Joint Secretary (Law) submitted his report from which it was revealed that the Principal Secretary (Law) is the final authority to take decision regarding filing of appeal.

Consequently, the Court directed the Registry to call explanation from the Principal Secretary (Law) and the matter was adjourned to 04.10.2023. Pursuant to order of the Court, the Principal Secretary (Law) submitted his explanation.

In the explanation, it was mentioned that only in cases where there is difference of opinion between Joint Secretary and Additional Secretary, the Principal Secretary (Law) can go with the opinion of either of the two officers. However, when there is no difference of opinion, he merely accords his permission.

The Court observed that in Secretariat, a paper under consideration is examined at different levels and each officer gives hand written observations on the office note and their notings indicate their thought process. These notes give an idea of the inputs on the basis of which decisions are taken.

“Although, officers at different levels may express divergent views on a given subject, however, final call in the matter is always taken by the Secretary/Principal Secretary of the concerned Ministry/Department, who forms his opinion based on the views expressed by his subordinate officers. This practice unfortunately does not appear to have been followed in the Law Department. The reply indicates that either the Principal Secretary (Law) is not able to take independent decisions or he avoids responsibility of taking decisions,” the Court added.

The Court disapproved the stand taken by the Principal Secretary (Law) that the District Government Counsel (Criminal) was solely responsible for not indicating the grounds on which the acquittal order could be challenged and held:

“…it is for the Judicial Officers manning Law Department to find out the infirmity, if any, in the judgment against which appeal is proposed and the possible grounds on which the appeal can be filed.”

Accordingly, the Court warned the Principal Secretary (Law) for the mechanical manner adopted by him to deal with the case referred to him for permission to file appeal. It asked him to be careful in the future.

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. P.C. Petshali, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. J.S. Virk, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Kumar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.

Case Title: Smt. Rekha Raghuvanshi v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2023

Date of Order: October 13, 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order