SUPREME COURT KEEPS OPEN QUESTION ON WHETHER STATE CAN APPEAL IN CBI CASES WITH PARTIAL STATE POLICE INVESTIGATION:

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its earlier ruling in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Another v. State of Bihar and Another (2010) 5 SCC 1, which established that a State Government does not have the right to file an appeal against a judgment in a criminal case prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court, however, left open an important constitutional and procedural question—whether a State Government can maintain an appeal in cases where the investigation was partly conducted by the State Police before being handed over to the CBI.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta observed that this issue could be deliberated upon in an appropriate case in the future, particularly when certain specific conditions are met. The Court clarified that such examination would be necessary in cases where the complaint was originally lodged by State officials, where the State Police conducted a part of the investigation before the CBI took over, where the prosecution was initiated at the instance of the State Government, or where the State retained a substantial stake or interest in the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Court noted that the question could arise where the CBI assumed jurisdiction upon the request of the State Government itself.

The case before the Supreme Court arose from the 2003 murder of Ramavatar Jaggi, a political leader, which initially came under the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh State Police. The local police commenced the investigation and filed a chargesheet in the matter. However, due to dissatisfaction with the quality and neutrality of the investigation, the case was subsequently transferred to the CBI. Upon assuming control, the CBI carried out a fresh and independent probe, leading to the filing of a new chargesheet. Among those named in the CBI’s chargesheet was Amit Jogi, son of the then Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, Ajit Jogi, who was accused of criminal conspiracy to commit murder.

After trial, the Sessions Court, on May 31, 2007, convicted twenty-eight accused individuals but acquitted Amit Jogi due to lack of sufficient evidence. Dissatisfied with this outcome, three separate appeals were filed before the Chhattisgarh High Court, one by the State Government, one by the complainant and victim’s son, Satish Jaggi, and another by the CBI. The High Court dismissed all three appeals. It held that the appeals filed by the State Government and the complainant were not maintainable, as the investigation and prosecution had been undertaken by the CBI, thereby falling exclusively under its domain. The CBI’s appeal, though otherwise maintainable, was dismissed on the technical ground of delay in filing.

The Supreme Court, while upholding the High Court’s conclusions, agreed that the appeals filed by the State of Chhattisgarh and the complainant were not maintainable since the CBI had fully taken over the investigation. The Court emphasized that once the CBI assumes control of a case, the authority to prosecute and to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) vests solely with the CBI and not with the State. The Court reiterated that in criminal proceedings handled entirely by the CBI, the State Government cannot independently file an appeal against acquittal.

However, the Court also recognized that a nuanced legal question arises when the State has played a partial role in the investigative process before the CBI’s involvement. In such situations, the Court observed, a detailed examination may be required to determine whether the State retains a limited right to appeal. While refraining from making a final pronouncement on this issue, the bench indicated that it should be considered in future cases involving overlapping investigative or prosecutorial roles between the State and the CBI.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the CBI’s right to appeal under Section 378 CrPC, restoring its appeal before the High Court and allowing it to proceed on merits. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the principle that while the CBI remains the sole prosecuting agency in cases it investigates, the question of concurrent rights of appeal in partially investigated cases remains open for future judicial consideration.