The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 30) held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC would be maintainable before the High Court against the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, overturning the trial court's decision of acquittal. The Court said that the only remedy would be to file a revision petition before the High Court against the Sessions Court decision of reversing an acquittal.

“…an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court. The only remedy which is available, is that of filing a revision under Section 397 r/w 401 (corresponding to Section 438 r/w 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”, observed a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale.

The Court reasoned that since the decision of the Sessions Court to reverse the trial court's decision of acquittal was not passed 'on a trial' but by exercising an Appellate jurisdiction, a remedy of a statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC cannot be invoked to file a statutory appeal against the Sessions Court order of reversing an acquittal.

“A combined reading of the expressions "on a trial" and "held by" leads to the inescapable conclusion that the provision contemplates the Court which itself conducts the trial, namely, the Court before which the proceedings commence with the framing of charges and culminate in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. Thus, in the context of Section 374(3)(a), an appeal lies from the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Magistrate who has conducted the entire trial to the Court of Session exercising appellate jurisdiction. The provision, therefore, unmistakably contemplates an appeal only from the Court which has itself held the trial and not from a Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.”, the Court observed.

“…in the present case an Appeal from the Sessions Court which has not conducted the 'trial' is not maintainable in the eye of law, as there is no provision under Cr.P.C. or BNSS to file such an appeal.”, the Court added.

The case arose when the appellant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class. The complainant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C./Section 419 BNSS, which reversed the acquittal and convicted the appellant for the first time. The appellant then filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 374 Cr.P.C./Section 415 BNSS.

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that no second statutory appeal is contemplated against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in appellate jurisdiction, and that the appropriate remedy is revision.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the Appellant moved to the Supreme Court.

The question that arises before the Supreme Court was 'Whether an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court?'

Affirming the High Court's decision, the Judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar rejected the Appellant's contention that the doctrine of continuation of proceedings converts an appellate court into a court exercising trial jurisdiction to justify the invocation of Section 374 CrPC against the order of the Sessions Court reversing the acquittal of the Appellant.

“While the doctrine explains the procedural continuity between the trial and the appeal, it does not, by itself, convert an appellate court into a court exercising trial jurisdiction.”, the Court said, while also declaring the Himachal Pradesh High Court's decision in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) to be bad in law, where the High Court held that since an appeal is a continuation of the trial, a conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge while exercising appellate jurisdiction must be regarded as a conviction "on a trial" within the meaning of Section 374(2).

“The decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Arun Sharma appears to proceed from the first proposition to the second without expressly demonstrating why the latter necessarily follows from the former. The reasoning adopted therein proceeds on the premise that, since an appeal is a continuation of the trial, a conviction recorded by the Sessions while exercising appellate jurisdiction must necessarily be regarded as a conviction "on a trial" within the meaning of Section 374(2). Such an inference does not appear to flow inexorably from the doctrine of continuity of proceedings.”, the Court said.

Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed, holding that no appeal lies under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to file a revision against the Sessions Court's conviction.

Cause Title: VISHNU KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 744

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A Velan, AOR Ms. Navpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Prince Singh, Adv. Mr. Nilay Rai, Adv. Ms. M. Rashik Hameed Mukilan, Adv. Ms. Vanya Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankalp Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nishant Verma, AOR Mr. Rajan Chourasia Ga, Adv. Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, AOR Mr. Arpit Garg, Adv.