District Magistrate is competent to authorize appeals against acquittal before the Court of Session under BNSS.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, which culminated in a trial (C.C. No. 22/2014) where he was acquitted on March 27, 2025.

Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State preferred an appeal (Crl.A. No. 92/2025) before the Court of Session at Mandya.

The District Magistrate (Deputy Commissioner) had granted the sanction to file this appeal.

The petitioner challenged the legality of the appeal proceedings via a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) [Section 482 Cr.P.C.], arguing that the District Magistrate lacked the competence to authorize the appeal.

1. Whether the District Magistrate is legally competent to authorize a Public Prosecutor to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal before a Court of Session under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Section 419(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which expressly empowers a District Magistrate to direct a Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate regarding cognizable and non-bailable offences.

The provision distinguishes such appeals from those lying to the High Court, which require authorization from the State Government.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that sanction for the appeal must emanate only from the State Government.

By examining the plain text of Section 419(1)(a) of the BNSS, the Court noted that the legislature "in its wisdom" explicitly conferred authority upon the District Magistrate for appeals filed before the Court of Session.

The Court reasoned that since the language of the statute is direct and categorical, there is no "room for ambiguity" or "interpretative dilution".

Since the appeal in question was filed before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge (and not the High Court), the Deputy Commissioner, acting as the District Magistrate, acted within his statutory jurisdictional bounds.

The High Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the validity of the proceedings in Crl.A. No. 92/2025.