CBI Investigation Appeal: Supreme Court Shuts Down State’s Right to Challenge Acquittal

Case Title: CBI v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi, SLP(CRL.) No. 30, 2012.

Introduction

In a significant reassertion of federal prosecutorial limits, the Supreme Court of India has confirmed that a State Government cannot autonomously lodge an appeal against an acquittal in a criminal case investigated and prosecuted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The three-judge Bench featuring Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta based its decision on the precedent set in Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2010) 5 SCC 1, reiterating that when the CBI takes over an investigation, the State forfeits the power to conduct or continue appellate actions in that matter.

Background of the Case

The decision stemmed from a prolonged criminal case concerning the assassination of political figure Ramavatar Jaggi on June 4, 2003, in Chhattisgarh. Originally examined by the State Police, the investigation was subsequently handed over to the CBI following public discontent and claims of partiality.

The CBI, after a re-investigation, submitted a new charge sheet identifying Amit Jogi, the son of former Chief Minister Ajit Jogi, as an accused, alleging his involvement in a criminal conspiracy to commit murder.

After the trial, the Sessions Court found 28 defendants guilty but cleared Amit Jogi of charges, citing a lack of sufficient evidence. Discontented with the results, three appeals were submitted to the Chhattisgarh High Court, one from the State Government, one from the victim’s son, Satish Jaggi, and one from the CBI.

The High Court rejected all three, deeming the appeals from the State and complainant as non-maintainable and dismissing the CBI’s appeal due to delays.

Supreme Court’s Judgement on CBI Investigation Appeal

On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s rationale concerning the State’s and complainant’s absence of locus standi. The Bench noted, based on Lalu Prasad Yadav (2010), that when the CBI solely investigates and prosecutes a case, the State Government loses any prosecutorial function, including the ability to file an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

“The Court noted that when the CBI takes complete charge of the investigation and prosecution, the power to contest an acquittal rests exclusively with the Central Government via the CBI.”

The Bench reinstated the CBI’s appeal in the High Court, observing that the dismissal due to delay was unwarranted, and affirmed that the CBI, as the investigating authority under Section 378(2) CrPC, maintains the sole right to contest acquittals in cases it probes.

Limited Question Left Open

Notably, in reaffirming the principle of Lalu Prasad Yadav, the Supreme Court chose not to decide on a subtle constitutional issue:

If a State Government is allowed to appeal in instances that were first registered by State Police but subsequently handed over to the CBI.

The Bench acknowledged that these "hybrid investigations" entail overlapping jurisdictional interests, as both the State and the Centre possess valid concerns, and proposed that this issue could be assessed in a suitable future case.

In pursuit of this goal, the Court specified examples of situations in which the matter might necessitate a legal decision:

1. in situations where a complaint was filed by a State authority,

2. in cases where part of the investigation was conducted by State Police,

3. where prosecution was initiated at the request of the State,

4. where the State maintains an ongoing interest in the proceedings, and

5. in situations where CBI authority was exercised at the request of the State.

By keeping this issue unresolved, the Court has indicated that although federal collaboration in criminal investigations is essential, distinct procedural boundaries are necessary to avoid simultaneous or contradictory prosecutions.

Reaffirming Lalu Prasad Yadav (2010)

In Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (2010), a Constitution Bench determined that when the Central Government assigns a case to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the State Government relinquishes jurisdiction, including the power to prosecute or file appeals.

The current reaffirmation by the Supreme Court strengthens this doctrine, guaranteeing that criminal appeals adhere to the same chain of authority as the investigation.

The Bench’s reiteration acts as a constitutional reminder that the authority for investigation and prosecution must stay uniform throughout the legal process, maintaining accountability and preventing jurisdictional ambiguity.

Broader Implications and Legal Analysis

This decision strengthens the federal balance between the Union and the States regarding criminal investigation issues. After the CBI assumes control, the prosecution becomes a key issue, regulated by Section 6 of the DSPE Act, requiring State consent but later removing State oversight.

The ruling also demonstrates the Supreme Court’s ongoing attempt to avoid redundant or contradictory appeals, guaranteeing that a single prosecuting body, and only one, is responsible for maintaining the integrity of the case.

By reinstating the CBI’s appeal, the Court highlighted that procedural delays must not overshadow substantive justice, especially in prominent cases that have considerable implications for public interest.

Way forward: Clarity Over Compromise

From a legal perspective, this reaffirmation highlights the Supreme Court’s dedication to transparency, procedural uniformity, and collaborative federalism in the enforcement of criminal law.

For both legal professionals and public entities, the message is clear: 

Once a case is transferred to the CBI, the prosecutorial control must stay with the Centre, from inquiry to appeal.

In a period when conflicting powers between State and Central agencies frequently generate debate, this ruling provides a guiding doctrine that guarantees procedural order and accountability within institutions.

The Supreme Court, by reaffirming Lalu Prasad Yadav, has not only addressed a procedural matter but has also strengthened the constitutional flow of criminal justice: one case, one investigator, one prosecuting body.

Empower Your Legal Practice with AI – Join Our Free Webinar!

Are you a legal professional looking to boost your efficiency and stay ahead in a competitive field? Discover the power of Lawttorney.AI – the cutting-edge tool designed to streamline legal research, automate tasks, and enhance productivity.

👉 Don't miss out! Reserve your spot in our FREE webinar and experience the future of legal practice today. Register Now