Kerala HC Dismisses State’s Leave Bid Against Cognizable, Non-Bailable Forest-Offence Acquittals: Sessions Appeal Requires District Magistrate’s Direction

The State of Kerala, represented by the Forest Range Officer, sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 308 of 2012, in which they had been charged under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv), and 47C read with 47G of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

The respondents objected to the maintainability of the High Court leave petition, arguing, among other things, that the case was instituted upon a complaint and that the appeal had not been brought by the complainant.

The Public Prosecutor submitted that the case arose from a report in an offence record and was not a complaint case.

Accused No. 2 had died.

Section 419(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) permits the District Magistrate to direct the Public Prosecutor to appeal to the Court of Session against a Magistrate’s acquittal for a cognizable and non-bailable offence; Section 419(1)(b) excludes cases falling under clause (a), while Section 419(3) requires High Court leave only for appeals brought to that Court under subsections (1) or (2).

For an acquittal in a complaint case, Section 419(4) provides a separate route: the complainant must obtain the High Court’s special leave to appeal.

The Court treated Section 419 as analogous to Section 378 of the CrPC, as amended, and referred to Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), which distinguishes the complainant’s special-leave route from other acquittal appeals.

It also considered State of Kerala v. Saji @ Dada Saji, concerning the requirement of a governmental direction for an appeal under Section 378(1)(b) of the CrPC.

The Court held that the acquittal concerned offences that were cognizable and non-bailable and had been passed by a Magistrate.

It therefore fell within Section 419(1)(a), under which the appeal lies to the Court of Session on the District Magistrate’s direction.

Because clause (b) expressly excludes cases covered by clause (a), the State could not pursue this High Court leave petition under clause (b), and Section 419(3)’s High Court-leave requirement did not provide an alternative route.

The Court accordingly accepted the objection to maintainability.

It did not need to determine the competing characterisations of the case as a complaint case or a report-based case to dispose of the petition.

It made no specific order on the delay petition and directed that the period from 2 July 2026 to 3 November 2026, during which the leave petition was pending, be excluded when calculating limitation.