Appeal Against Acquittal In Bailable Offences U/S 378 CrPC Lies To High Court, Not Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court

The Court ruled that any appellate decision rendered by a Sessions Court in such circumstances would be without jurisdiction and a nullity in law.

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by an accused challenging a judgment of the Sessions Court, which had reversed his acquittal and convicted him for offences under the Indian Penal Code.

A Bench of Justice G. Basavaraja examined the scope and effect of the amended provision of Section 378 CrPC while deciding the jurisdictional objection raised by the appellant, and held: “In view of amendment to Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, if an order of acquittal is passed by the Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offence, appeal lies to the Court of Sessions. In all other cases, against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, the appeal lies to the High Court”.

The appellant was represented by Advocate Sabappa B. Malegul, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, while the State was represented by Asma Kouser, Additional State Public Prosecutor.

Background

The prosecution case arose out of a road accident in which the accused was alleged to have driven a bus in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in injuries to several persons and the death of one individual. A charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

After the trial, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal and convicted the accused, imposing sentences of imprisonment and fine.

The accused thereafter approached the High Court, contending that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal against acquittal, as all the offences involved were bailable in nature.

Court’s Observation

The High Court first examined the amended scheme of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as substituted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005.

The Court noted that, post-amendment, Section 378(1)(a) permits an appeal to the Court of Session only where the acquittal by a Magistrate relates to a cognizable and non-bailable offence. In all other cases of acquittal by a Magistrate, the appeal lies to the High Court under Section 378(1)(b).

Referring to the statutory text, the High Court observed that the Sessions Court could not assume jurisdiction in cases where the statute expressly mandated an appeal to the High Court, affirming that in the case at hand, “the State ought to have preferred appeal before the High Court against the order passed by the trial court, as the alleged offences are bailable in nature”.

Holding that jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, the Court reiterated the settled principle that an order passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is void ab initio and a nullity in law. Jurisdiction, the Court observed, encompasses authority over the subject matter, the parties and the issues adjudicated, and cannot be assumed by implication.

“The Sessions Court order is patently without jurisdiction and the continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court, as also,the fundamental right of the accused which is embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench further remarked.

The Court also stressed that “State being a parens patriae (meaning- the authority regarded as the legal protector of the citizens), ought to have acted in a diligent manner”, while emphasising that “jurisdiction cannot be assumed indirectly and even inherent powers can be exercised to correct jurisdictional excess, to prevent miscarriage of justice”.

On merits, the Court examined whether the Sessions Court was justified in reversing the acquittal. Applying settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court found that the trial court’s view was a possible and reasonable view based on the evidence on record. The Sessions Court had failed to assign cogent reasons for overturning the acquittal and had exceeded the permissible limits of appellate interference.

Conclusion

Allowing the appeal, the Karnataka High Court held that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the State’s appeal against acquittal in respect of bailable offences. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court was accordingly set aside.

The Court restored and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, directed a refund of any fine amount deposited by the accused.

Cause Title: K. Keshava v. State of Karnataka

Appearances

Appellant: Advocate Sabappa B. Malegul, Amicus Curiae

Respondent: Asma Kouser, Additional State Public Prosecutor

Click here to read/download Judgment