Case Law Details
Amit Jogi Vs Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
The matter concerns proceedings arising from a challenge to orders passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh and subsequent directions issued by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, issued notice and granted interim relief by staying the effect and operation of the High Court’s order dated 25.03.2026 in CRMP No. 495 of 2011. In a related proceeding, the Supreme Court also stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment dated 02.04.2026 in ACQA No. 66 of 2026, by which the appellant had been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The Court also allowed an application seeking exemption from surrendering.
Read HC Judgment in this case: CBI Appeal Allowed Due to Serious Allegations Despite Delay in Filing: Chhattisgarh HC
The underlying case relates to a petition filed under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against an acquittal order dated 31.05.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. While several co-accused were convicted for serious offences, the respondent was acquitted. The petitioner contended that sufficient material existed on record, including evidence of criminal conspiracy, and that the acquittal resulted from an erroneous grant of benefit of doubt.
The matter had earlier reached the Supreme Court through appeals filed by the State of Chhattisgarh, the CBI, and the de facto complainant. In its judgment dated 06.11.2025, the Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 378 CrPC and reiterated that in cases investigated by central agencies such as the CBI, the power to appeal against acquittal lies exclusively with the Central Government, thereby excluding the State Government’s jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was held to be not maintainable.
On the issue of the de facto complainant’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the right of a victim to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC is prospective and applies only to acquittals passed after 31.12.2009. Since the acquittal in the present case occurred in 2007, no such right existed at the relevant time, leading to dismissal of the complainant’s appeal.
With regard to the CBI’s application for leave to appeal, which had been filed with a delay of 1373 days, the Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic approach. It held that given the gravity of the allegations, including conspiracy to commit murder, the matter should not be rejected on technical grounds. The delay was condoned, and the High Court’s earlier rejection was set aside. The matter was remitted to the High Court with directions to consider the application on merits. The Court also directed that the de facto complainant and the State be impleaded as parties and be given an opportunity of hearing.
Following remand, the High Court acknowledged its obligation to comply with the Supreme Court’s directions and proceed with a merits-based evaluation. It allowed the CBI’s application and granted leave to appeal against the acquittal. The appeal was directed to be registered and admitted for hearing.
The High Court also noted that despite clear directions from the Supreme Court, the CBI had failed to take steps to implead the de facto complainant as a party respondent. This was viewed as non-compliance with the mandate of the Supreme Court. However, in the interest of justice, the High Court directed immediate impleadment without insisting on a formal application.
Additional procedural directions were issued, including supply of the paper-book to the State’s counsel, recording of appearances, and directing the respondent to furnish bail bonds and sureties before the trial court within a specified time. The matter was listed for final hearing along with connected revision petitions.
In essence, the case involves interim protection granted by the Supreme Court by staying both the High Court’s order granting leave to appeal and the subsequent conviction, while also reaffirming principles relating to maintainability of appeals under Section 378 CrPC, the prospective nature of victim appeal rights under Section 372, and the need to consider serious criminal matters on merits rather than dismissing them on procedural grounds.
.FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Heard.
Issue notice, returnable within four weeks. Mr. Mayank Pandey, learned advocate-on-record is representing the complainant on caveat. As such, no formal notice is required to be issued.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the matter.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CR.M.P. No.495 of 2011 shall remain stayed.
Diary No(s). 22717/2026
Heard.
Application seeking exemption from surrendering is allowed.
Issue notice, returnable within four weeks.
Mr. Mayank Pandey, learned advocate-on-record is representing the private respondent No. 3, on caveat.
As such, no formal notice is required to be issued.
Let notice be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the matter.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2026 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in ACQA No. 66 of 2026 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and fine, shall remain stayed.
Author Bio
