SC Upholds Limits on State Appeals in CBI Cases, Revives CBI Challenge to Amit Jogi’s Acquittal

The case arises from the 2003 murder of National Congress Party treasurer Ramavatar Jaggi in Raipur, initially investigated by the local police. The first FIR led to a chargesheet against several accused, but not against Amit Aishwarya Jogi, son of the then Chief Minister Ajit Jogi. Dissatisfied with the investigation, the victim’s son, Satish Jaggi, sought the transfer of the case, leading the State Government to hand over the probe to the CBI. The CBI conducted further investigation and filed a fresh chargesheet naming additional accused, including Amit Jogi, and the trial proceeded in two linked sessions cases. On 31 May 2007, the trial court convicted 28 accused persons but acquitted Amit Jogi for lack of sufficient evidence.

HC’s Decision: Multiple challenges followed before the Chhattisgarh High Court, the State sought leave to appeal under Section 378(3) CrPC; the victim sought conversion of his pending revision into an appeal under the proviso to Section 372; and the CBI belatedly sought leave to appeal after initially assuming the State would pursue the challenge. The High Court dismissed all three appeals and the CBI’s application on the ground of delay. These orders were challenged before the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised: Whether the State, victim, or CBI could maintain an appeal against the acquittal of Amit Jogi, and whether Lalu Prasad Yadav correctly restricts State appeals in cases investigated by the CBI under Section 378 CrPC.

SC’s Decision: The Supreme Court upheld the interpretation in Lalu Prasad Yadav, reaffirming that Section 378 CrPC creates a mutually exclusive scheme: only the Central Government may appeal against acquittals in cases investigated by the CBI or other Central agencies. Therefore, the State of Chhattisgarh’s appeal was rightly held non-maintainable. The Court saw no reason to refer Lalu Prasad Yadav to a larger bench, though it remarked that certain mixed-investigation scenarios may warrant fuller examination in a future case.

On the victim’s appeal, the Court held that the proviso to Section 372 CrPC operates only for acquittal orders passed after 31 December 2009. Since the trial court’s acquittal was from 2007, the victim had no statutory right of appeal, making the High Court’s dismissal correct.

On the CBI’s appeal, however, the Court found the High Court’s rigid refusal to condone delay inappropriate given the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing challenges by other parties, and the importance of adjudicating the acquittal on merits. While not endorsing the CBI’s explanation for the delay, the Court condoned it “to ensure that the matter is not thrown out on mere technicalities.” The case was remanded to the High Court to consider the CBI’s application for leave to appeal on merits. In view of the exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court directed that Amit Jogi be heard at the leave stage, and that both the State and de-facto complainant be impleaded before the High Court.

Thus, the CBI’s appeal was allowed, while the State’s and the victim’s appeals were dismissed.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below