Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

JAGBIR AND ANR. versus STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided
3 September 1998
Judges listed
M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.S.M. QUADRI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Case Allowed

Citations

Official
[1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 411 · 1998 INSC 346
Not shown
2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Consequent upon a charge sheet ( challan) submitted by the police and a committal enquiry that followed, the two appellants and others were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozpur. The trial ended in an acquittal of all of them; and aggrieved thereby, Birbal, the complainant, filed an appeal before the High Court after obtaining leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. In disposing of the appeal the High Court set aside the acquittal of the two appellants and convicted them under Section 302/34 1.P.C., while upholding the acquittal of others. Aggrieved by the order of the conviction and sentence recorded against them the appellants filed this appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C.

pp. 411–412, margin F

Since the appeal must succeed on a pure question of law, we need not go into the facts of the case. Admittedly, the cognizance in the instant case was taken upon a police report under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Resultantly, it was the State alone who could file an appeal in the High Court against the order of acquittal under Section 378(1) Cr.P.C. after obtaining leave under sub-section (3) thereof - and not the complainant who could only file an application under Section 401 Cr.P.C. for revision of that order. The High Court, therefore, was not at all justified in entertaining the appeal of the complainant and disposing the same in the manner aforesaid. On this score alone, we allow this appeal and restore the order of the trial Court. The High court will now treat the memorandum of appeal filed by the complainant as an application for revision of the order of the Sessions Judge, qua the two appellants only, and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The appellants who are in jail be released forthwith unless wanted in connection with any other case. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 412, margin A