Appeal Will Not Lie Under Section 374 CrPC Against Sessions Court Reversal of Acquittal Rules Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India, in Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 744 / 2026 INSC 770), delivered on July 30, 2026, has held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), is maintainable before the High Court against a conviction imposed by a Sessions Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction. The ruling clarifies the remedial framework available to persons convicted for the first time by an appellate court that reverses an acquittal.

Facts: Acquittal by JMFC Reversed by Sessions Judge

The case involved an accused, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, who was tried before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class (JMFC) on charges under Sections 498-A and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now corresponding to relevant provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The JMFC acquitted the accused of all charges after evaluating the evidence on record.

The complainant, dissatisfied with the acquittal, exercised the right of appeal before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge, exercising appellate jurisdiction, reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused. This placed Vishnu Kumar Gupta in the position of being convicted for the first time not by the trial court but by the appellate court. The question then arose: what remedy is available to a person who is convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court sitting in appeal? This procedural question is fundamental to the criminal justice system, much like understanding the correct procedure for filing a private criminal complaint before a magistrate.

The Legal Question: Is a Statutory Appeal Maintainable?

Section 374 of the CrPC (Section 415 of the BNSS) provides for appeals against convictions. The provision contemplates appeals to the High Court against convictions by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. However, the critical distinction is between a conviction by a Sessions Judge exercising original jurisdiction and a conviction by a Sessions Judge exercising appellate jurisdiction. When a Sessions Judge convicts an accused while exercising original trial jurisdiction, a statutory appeal lies to the High Court under Section 374. However, the position is different when the Sessions Judge convicts an accused while exercising appellate jurisdiction by reversing a Magistrate's acquittal.

The Supreme Court held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable before the High Court against a conviction by a Sessions Court exercising appellate jurisdiction. This interpretation is grounded in the statutory scheme, which does not provide for a second level of appeal as a matter of right in such cases. The right to appeal is a statutory creation, and its scope is defined by the terms of the statute. Where the statute does not expressly provide for an appeal, none can be read into the provision by implication.

The Alternative Remedy: Criminal Revision Under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC

While holding that no statutory appeal is available, the Supreme Court identified the appropriate remedy for persons in Vishnu Kumar Gupta's situation. The Court held that the only remedy available is to file a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 438 read with Section 442 of the BNSS. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, while technically narrower than appellate jurisdiction, provides a mechanism for correcting errors of law and, in appropriate cases, errors of fact.

The distinction between appeal and revision is significant in practice. An appellate court can re-examine both facts and law, and can substitute its own findings for those of the trial court. A revisional court, on the other hand, ordinarily exercises a more limited jurisdiction, intervening only where there is an error of law, a material irregularity in procedure, or a resulting failure of justice. However, the Supreme Court's directions in this case seek to mitigate the practical impact of this distinction. Understanding the difference between these remedies is crucial for practitioners, just as it is important to understand the process for filing an application for discharge in a criminal case under the BNSS or the procedure for filing an appeal against consumer disputes redressal commission orders.

Direction to High Courts: Adopt a More Liberal Revisional Approach

Recognizing the potential hardship that could result from limiting the remedy to revision rather than appeal, the Supreme Court directed High Courts to adopt a more liberal approach while exercising revisional jurisdiction in cases where a Sessions Court has reversed an acquittal and convicted the accused for the first time. The Court held that where warranted by the facts, High Courts should invoke the power under Section 401(1) CrPC, corresponding to Section 442 of the BNSS, to exercise the same powers as an appellate court.

This direction is significant because it effectively expands the scope of revisional review in a specific category of cases. By directing High Courts to exercise revisional jurisdiction with the same breadth as appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has ensured that persons convicted for the first time by a Sessions Court in appeal are not left with a substantially inferior remedy. The Court's approach balances the statutory limitation on appeals with the constitutional imperative of ensuring access to justice and the right to a meaningful review. This reasoning is consistent with the Court's approach in other cases involving the interpretation of procedural provisions, such as rulings concerning witness testimony and the admissibility of evidence under Section 299 CrPC and advocate commissioner powers under Section 38 of the BNSS.

Practical Impact and Key Takeaways

This judgment has important practical consequences for criminal defence practitioners across India. First, when a Sessions Court reverses an acquittal by a Magistrate, the convicted person should file a criminal revision petition before the High Court, not an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS). Filing an appeal in such circumstances would result in the petition being rejected as not maintainable, causing unnecessary delay and potential prejudice to the convicted person.

Second, the Supreme Court's direction to High Courts to adopt a liberal approach in such revision petitions provides convicted persons with a substantive safeguard. High Courts are expected to go beyond the traditional confines of revisional jurisdiction and examine both the facts and the law with the thoroughness that would characterize an appellate review. Third, this ruling underscores the importance of identifying the correct remedy at the outset. Practitioners must carefully analyze whether the conviction they seek to challenge was imposed in the exercise of original or appellate jurisdiction, as this determines the available remedy. The procedural landscape of criminal appeals and revisions requires the same attention to detail that applies in understanding the nuances of filing complaints before magistrates and navigating the appellate framework under the BNSS.