Appeal Against Acquittal In Bailable Offences Lies Only Before High Court, Not Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a conviction order passed by a Sessions Court, which had held the accused guilty of causing death by negligence. The High Court found that the State Government had wrongly filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, even though the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.

The appellant, K. Keshava, had challenged the Sessions Court's order that allowed the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

The appellant argued that when a judgment of acquittal is passed in respect of bailable offences, the District and Sessions Judge has no authority to entertain an appeal. It was contended that such acquittals do not fall under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the judgment passed by the first appellate court was a nullity.

On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the judgment of the first appellate court was passed on merits, was just and proper, and therefore did not require any interference.

Justice G. Basavaraja observed that, in view of the amendment to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the Court of Sessions only when the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. In all other cases, an appeal against an acquittal passed by a Magistrate lies before the High Court. Since the alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC are bailable in nature, the State ought to have preferred the appeal before the High Court.

The Court further noted that the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor failed to demonstrate how an appeal against acquittal in respect of bailable offences was maintainable before the Sessions Court. It held that, in view of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, such an appeal does not lie before the Sessions Court.

Emphasising the concept of jurisdiction, the Court observed that jurisdiction encompasses the authority of a court over the parties, subject matter, and issues adjudicated. It held that the Sessions Court's order was patently without jurisdiction, and that continuation of such proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of court, as well as a violation of the accused's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also observed that jurisdiction cannot be assumed indirectly, and that even inherent powers can be exercised to correct jurisdictional excesses in order to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Allowing the appeal, the High Court stated that it found no legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court. It further held that the first appellate court had failed to assign proper reasons for reversing the acquittal.

Appearance: Amicus Curiae SABAPPA B. MALEGUL, for Appellant.

Additional SPP ASMA KAUSER, for Respondent

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

Case Title: K Keshava AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2013

Click Here To Read/Download Order