Appeal against Magistrate’s acquittal directed to be treated as a victim’s appeal before Sessions Court.

The State of Gujarat initiated proceedings against the respondent-accused under Sections 17 and 18(a)(ii), read with Section 27, of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Upleta. The accused pleaded not guilty, and the matter proceeded to trial. By judgment and order dated 29 September 2009, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.

The State filed the present appeal before the Gujarat High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

During hearing, the parties addressed the maintainability and proper forum of the appeal in light of conflicting authorities concerning appeals against acquittal by a Magistrate and the victim’s right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

The Court considered Section 378 CrPC, particularly Sections 378(1)(a), 378(1)(b), and 378(4), governing appeals against acquittal; the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, which confers upon a victim a right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; and Section 413 BNSS, corresponding to the victim’s appellate remedy under the new procedural code.

Relying on Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration), (2013) 2 SCC 17, the Court noted that an appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal in a cognizable and non-bailable offence is to be filed before the Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed by the District Magistrate, whereas other appeals against acquittal may lie before the High Court as directed by the State Government.

The Court also considered Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, which held that a victim may appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC without seeking special leave under Section 378(4).

However, it noted that M/s. Everest Automobiles v. M/s. Rajit Enterprises, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12350 of 2024, questioned the correctness of Celestium Financial for not considering earlier decisions such as Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. and Subhash Chand, and indicated the desirability of a larger Bench ruling.

The High Court did not examine the evidentiary merits of the acquittal. It focused on the appropriate appellate forum and the interaction between Section 378 CrPC and the victim’s statutory right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

In view of the principles discussed in Subhash Chand, the subsequent reasoning in Celestium Financial, and the Supreme Court’s reservations in Everest Automobiles regarding the unresolved conflict, the Court considered it appropriate not to retain the matter for merits adjudication.

Instead, it directed that the appeal be transferred to the concerned Sessions Court, where it could be treated and numbered as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC or Section 413 BNSS.

The Sessions Court was directed to treat and number the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC or Section 413 BNSS and issue notice to the parties.

The Court further directed the lower appellate court to endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously, given its prolonged pendency.

It expressly clarified that it had not considered or decided the merits of the acquittal.