1977 INSC 0181
                                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                State of Maharashtra

                                                           Vs.

                                            Mahipati Krishna Ingavale

                                           Crl.A.Nos. 452-454 of 1976

                        (Y. V. Chandrachud, P. K. Goswami and P. N. Shinghal, JJ.)

                                                      12.04.1977

                                                   JUDGEMENT

P. K. GOSWAMI, J.:-

1. In these appeals by special leave at the instance of the State of Maharashtra the question of the
scope of S. 377 (1) and (2), Cr. P. C. arises for consideration.

2. The State preferred appeals against the inadequate sentence awarded by the trial court in each of
the three cases tried for offences under S. 33 (1) (c), (f) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act. The
sentence was a nominal fine of a few rupees in each case.

3. The High Court rejected the appeals as incompetent on the ground that the State of Maharashtra
was not entitled to prefer the appeals under S. 377 (1), Cr. P. C. The High Court held that since the
offences were under a Central Act and the investigation of enquiry was conducted only by Forest
Officers under the provisions of the Act the Central Government alone was competent to prefer the
appeals under S. 377 (2), Cr. P. C. However, the High Court also dealt with the merits of the appeals
and held that there was no justification for interfering with the sentence in all the three cases.

4. We have delivered our decision today in Eknath Shankarrao Mukkawar v. State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 577 of 1976 = (reported in AIR 1977 SC 1177) where an identical question
about the scope of S. 377 (1) and (2), Cr. P. C. was considered. These appeals will be governed by
the said decision for the identical reasons. The High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that
the appeals by the State were incompetent. We, however, agree with the High Court that there was
no justification for interference with the sentence in all the three appeals.

5. The judgment of the High Court with regard to the maintainability of the appeals is set aside but
the rest of the order in each appeal stands. The appeals are thus dismissed.

         Appeals dismissed.