The state filed the criminal revision petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court following the dismissal of an appeal challenging the trial court’s acquittal order. (Image generated using AI)
Madhya Pradesh High Court news: Criticising the filing of appeals before the wrong forum, and calling it a “big strain on the time and expense of the government and judiciary”, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the state to pay Rs 10,000 by getting it from all the officers personally involved in the filing of such a misconceived appeal.
Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh was hearing the revision petition filed by the state challenging the acquittal of one Jugal Kishore in a case where some units of Sagun wood were allegedly recovered from his possession in December 2006.
Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh heard the plea on February 12.
“Filing an appeal blindly without knowing the law is already a big strain on the time and the expenses of the state, as well as the courts. Therefore, this revision is dismissed as not maintainable but subject to payment of the cost of Rs 10,000 to be paid by the state of M.P. through the Forest Range Officer…,” the high court said in its February 12 order.
The Madhya Pradesh high court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 and gave the state the liberty to recover the amount from every official involved in the filing process, ranging from the forest range officer to the legal drafters.
Case, acquittal and appeal
Kishore, along with other accused, Lallu Gond, was tried under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, for the charges of illegal entry, habitat destruction within protected areas and unlawful trade or transportation of wildlife products.
Kishore was acquitted of all the charges by the trial court in November 2010. However, the co-accused was found guilty of the same offences and was punished by the said court.
The state then appealed against his acquittal before the appellate court in May 2011, which was dismissed in May 2013.
The state filed the criminal revision petition following the dismissal of the appeal challenging the acquittal order of the trial court.
The state’s counsel, government advocate Samta Jain, stated that the order of the appellate court is not as per law, pointing out that it held that no appeal would be considered in the case.
Jain also argued that the appellate court held that an appeal would not lie, but they should have seen that the crime under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, was committed and the accused were guilty of the offence, and four units of Sagun wood were also seized from Kishore.
Court’s observation: No application of mind
The appeal that seems to have been filed by the state was drafted “hastily without proper application of mind”, right from the Law Department or the office of the Advocate General.
It is noted that the present case is of December 2006, in which the trial court acquitted the accused in November 2010.
The accused was then acquitted of all the charges framed under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, whereas the co-accused, Gond, was held guilty for the same offences and was punished.
An appeal was filed in May 2011, and the respective court framed an issue regarding jurisdiction and gave a finding that it was not maintainable before the appellate court.
It is noted that the appellate court is justified in rejecting the plea.
The court pointed out that the same appeal challenging the acquittal of Kishore should have been filed before this court and not the appellate court.
It was noted that the memo of appeal filed in the present case has nothing that explains how that order was bad in law.
This revision is dismissed as not maintainable, and the state is directed to pay an amount of Rs 10,000.
The state is at liberty to recover the cost of Rs 10,000 personally from the officers who were involved from “A to Z” in filing this wrong appeal.
Richa Sahay is a Legal Correspondent for The Indian Express, where she focuses on simplifying the complexities of the Indian judicial system. A law postgraduate, she leverages her advanced legal education to bridge the gap between technical court rulings and public understanding, ensuring that readers stay informed about the rapidly evolving legal landscape.
Expertise
Advanced Legal Education: As a law postgraduate, Richa possesses the academic depth required to interpret intricate statutes and constitutional nuances. Her background allows her to provide more than just summaries; she offers context-driven analysis of how legal changes impact the average citizen.
Specialized Beat: She operates at the intersection of law and public policy, focusing on:
Judicial Updates: Providing timely reports on orders from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts.
Legal Simplification: Translating dense "legalese" into accessible, engaging narratives without sacrificing factual accuracy.
Legislative Changes: Monitoring new bills, amendments, and regulatory shifts that shape Indian society. ... Read More
Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh heard the plea on February 12.