In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that a delay condonation application with an appeal against an acquittal cannot be allowed based solely on a subsequent change of law. The Court emphasized that a change in law cannot serve as a valid ground to overturn a previously decided acquittal.
The bench, comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti, was hearing a criminal appeal filed against the Kerala High Court’s decision to allow the State’s plea to overturn the appellant’s acquittal after a subsequent Supreme Court judgment supported the prosecution’s case.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Hyder, was acquitted in 2018 based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018), which held that the informant and investigator in a criminal case should not be the same person to ensure a fair investigation. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court in Mukesh Singh v. State overruled the Mohan Lal judgment, allowing the informant to act as the investigator.
Relying on the Mukesh Singh judgment, the State filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court, seeking to overturn the acquittal. The High Court allowed the appeal, condoning a delay of 1184 days in filing the appeal. This decision prompted the appellant to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s ruling.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court, in its judgment, observed that the change of law could not serve as a valid ground for reopening the case and overturning the acquittal. It cited the judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Tejpal & Ors. (2024), which reiterated that a change in law cannot reopen cases that have already been decided unless they are pending final adjudication.
The Court noted that the appellant’s case was decided in 2018, and the acquittal could not be revisited solely because of the subsequent Mukesh Singh ruling in 2020. The Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s order, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
Legal Principle Affirmed
The Court reaffirmed that a change in law, by itself, cannot be used to challenge a judgment of acquittal rendered in favor of the accused. The ruling underscores the principle of finality in legal proceedings, emphasizing that decisions already made cannot be reopened merely based on subsequent changes in legal interpretations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Hyder v. State of Kerala (2023) reinforces the idea that legal decisions, particularly acquittals, should remain final unless there are compelling grounds to revisit them. A change in law does not automatically warrant the reopening of a case that has already been decided. The Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s order is a significant reaffirmation of the principle of finality in legal judgments.
Case Title: Hyder v. State of Kerala
Bench: Justices Hrishikesh Roy and S.V.N. Bhatti
Lawcutor 