S. 378(3) CrPC | For Leave To Appeal, Consider If Prima Facie Case Or Arguable Points Exist; Not Whether Acquittal Likely To Be Reversed: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently clarified that when deciding an application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. against an acquittal, the High Court should not deny leave solely based on a prima facie assessment of whether the acquittal would be overturned. Instead, it must apply its mind and determine whether a prima facie case exists or if arguable points have been raised.

Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. requires the State to obtain leave from the High Court before appealing against an acquittal.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan clarified the position while deciding an appeal filed by the informant against the Bombay High Court's decision to reject the State's application for leave to appeal against the accused's/respondent no. 1's acquittal by the trial court. The High Court denied leave to appeal against an acquittal, noting that the view taken by the trial court to acquit an accused was 'possible view', not liable to be interfered with.

The High Court, instead of applying its mind to whether a prima facie case exists or if arguable points have been raised challenging the acquittal, had based its findings on whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.

Finding the High Court's approach to be untenable, the Court relying upon the precedent set in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar reported in (2008) 9 SCC 475 emphasized that the High Court should consider whether a prima facie case exists or arguable points have been raised, not whether the acquittal will necessarily be overturned.

“In our opinion, however, in deciding the question whether requisite leave should or should not be granted, the High Court must apply its mind, consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised and not whether the order of acquittal would or would not be set aside.”, the court observed in Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar's case.

After hearing Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, appearing for the appellant, Sr. Adv. Mr. R. Basant, appearing for the respondent no.1, and Sr. Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kharde, appearing for the State, the Court concluded that at least the High Court should have granted leave and thereafter would have heard the acquittal appeal on its own merits.

“We are of the view that at the stage of considering grant of leave under sub-section (3) of Section 378 of the Cr.P.C., a prima facie case should be looked into by the High Court, of course, not ignoring the materials on record.”, the Court added.

The Court concluded that the High Court should have granted leave to re-examine the evidence, even if the Trial Court's view was a "possible view." It emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair trial and the need for a thorough review of evidence, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.

"Without saying anything further as any further observations may cause prejudice to either side, we grant leave to appeal and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the criminal appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. The criminal appeal shall now be registered accordingly.", the court said.

At the end, the Court also clarified that it didn't examine the case from the aspect of whether the informant had the locus to file an appeal against the rejection of the State's leave to appeal against an acquittal by the High Court. However, looking from the perspective that the High Court erred in refusing to grant to appeal without basing its reasoning on the existence of a prima facie case or the making of arguable points, the Court didn't delve onto such question, and instead decided to remit the matter to the High Court registering the State's criminal appeal.

“We are not getting into the debate whether the impugned order could have been questioned by the brother of the deceased (original first informant) or not. Prima facie, we are not convinced with the reasonings assigned by the High Court while declining to grant leave against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. We are conscious of the fact that the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. We are also conscious of the fact that one of the prime witnesses, i.e., the son of the deceased aged 15 years at the relevant point of time, turned hostile.”, the court observed.

“Without saying anything further as any further observations may cause prejudice to either side, we grant leave to appeal and remit the matter to the High Court for consideration of the criminal appeal on its own merits, in accordance with law. The criminal appeal shall now be registered accordingly.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court disposed of the case.

Case Title: MANOJ RAMESHLAL CHHABRIYA VERSUS MAHESH PRAKASH AHUJA & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 272

Click here to read/download the order