State’s appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal lies before the Sessions Court, not the High Court.

The State of Gujarat, through the Drug Inspector, instituted proceedings against the respondent under Sections 18(c), 18(a)(vi) and 27(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Following investigation and filing of a charge-sheet, the respondent pleaded not guilty and faced trial before the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Navsari.

By judgment dated 22 October 2010, the Trial Court acquitted the respondent of all charges.

The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

1. Whether an appeal against an acquittal by a Magistrate in a case involving a cognizable and non-bailable offence lies before the High Court or the Court of Sessions under Section 378 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the appeal could be treated as an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), and consequently transferred to the concerned Sessions Court.

3. Whether the High Court should examine the merits of the acquittal at this stage, pending authoritative consideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court on the interaction between Sections 372 and 378 of the CrPC.

Section 378(1)(a)–(b) of the CrPC regulates appeals by the State against acquittal and, as explained in Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) , an appeal against a Magistrate’s acquittal in a cognizable and non-bailable case is to be filed before the Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as directed by the District Magistrate, while other State appeals lie to the High Court as directed by the State Government.

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC confers an independent right on a victim to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation; Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran held that such right is unconditional and does not require special leave under Section 378(4).

However, M/s. Everest Automobiles v. M/s. Ranjit Enterprises noted that Celestium Financial had not considered Satya Pal Singh v. State of M.P. and Subhash Chand , and indicated that the issue warranted authoritative determination by a larger Bench.

The corresponding appellate provision under the BNSS is Section 413.

The High Court observed that the appeal had been filed against an acquittal recorded by a Magistrate, but the proper appellate forum was affected by the statutory distinction between State appeals under Section 378 and victim appeals under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

Relying on Subhash Chand and the subsequent decisions cited before it, the Court found that the appeal should be placed before the concerned Sessions Court.

Since the Supreme Court had identified an unresolved conflict concerning the scope of the victim’s appellate right and the applicability of Section 378(4), the High Court considered it inappropriate to decide the merits or finally resolve the legal controversy.

It therefore directed that the appeal be transferred and treated as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS.

The Registry was directed to transfer the appeal, along with the complete record and proceedings, to the concerned Sessions Court.

The Sessions Court was directed to register and treat it as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC/Section 413 BNSS, issue notice to the parties, and endeavour to decide it expeditiously, having regard to the considerable pendency of the matter.