Supreme Court on Appeals in CBI-Investigated Cases: Only Central Government Has Locus.

Headnote:

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that in cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), only the Central Government has the authority to file an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Appeals filed by the State Government in such cases are not maintainable. The Court, however, condoned the delay in the CBI’s appeal and directed the High Court to hear it on merits.

Background:

• The case arose from the murder of NCP leader Ramavatar Jaggi in June 2003 in Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

• The FIR was initially registered by the State Police and later transferred to the CBI in January 2004.

• CBI’s investigation led to the filing of a fresh chargesheet implicating Amit Aishwarya Jogi, son of then Chief Minister Ajit Jogi, and others.

• The Trial Court, in 2007, acquitted Amit Jogi for lack of evidence.

• The State of Chhattisgarh, CBI, and complainant Satish Jaggi each filed appeals against the acquittal, but the High Court dismissed them in 2011 as non-maintainable or time-barred.

• The matter reached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s interpretation of Section 378 CrPC and its refusal to entertain the appeals.

Court’s Observations:

• The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 1 that under Section 378(2) CrPC, the Central Government alone can file an appeal against acquittal in a CBI-investigated case.

• The State Government lacks locus standi once investigation has been handed over to the CBI.

• While acknowledging that some cases may warrant reconsideration of this interpretation by a larger bench (especially where investigation began with the State), the Bench held this was not the appropriate case to revisit the settled position.

• The delay in CBI’s appeal was condoned considering the gravity of the offence and the interest of justice.

• The victim’s appeal under Section 372 CrPC was held not maintainable, as the right to appeal granted by the 2009 amendment is prospective and cannot apply to an acquittal of 2007.

Decision:

• State of Chhattisgarh’s appeal – Dismissed as not maintainable under Section 378(2) CrPC.

• CBI’s appeal – Delay condoned; High Court directed to hear on merits.

• De-facto complainant’s appeal – Dismissed as not maintainable (Section 372 proviso not retrospective).

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 378(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Appeal in case of acquittal by CBI.

• Section 372 (Proviso), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Victim’s right to appeal (prospective in operation).

• Lalu Prasad Yadav & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2010) 5 SCC 1 – Central Government’s locus in CBI cases reaffirmed.

• Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka, (2019) 2 SCC 752 – Victim’s right to appeal held prospective.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1285

Case: State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: November 2025

Criminal Appeal No.: 1927 of 2014 & connected matters