Victim’s Right to Appeal Against Acquittal Lies Before the Sessions Court Under Section 372 Proviso.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal complaint against the respondent-accused under Sections 406, 477-A, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Following a police investigation and charge-sheet, the Trial Court consolidated multiple criminal cases (Nos. 153 to 157 of 1993).

On 07.11.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), delivered a judgment acquitting the respondent of all charges.

The appellant subsequently filed the present appeal against acquittal before the High Court of Gujarat under Section 378(4) of the CrPC.

1. Whether an appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence should be filed in the High Court or the Sessions Court

2. Whether the victim’s right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC is independent of the conditions set out in Section 378(4) regarding special leave

Section 378(1)(b) of the CrPC, which mandates that appeals against acquittal orders passed by a Magistrate in cognizable and non-bailable cases are to be filed in the Sessions Court.

The precedent in Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration) (2013) 2 SCC 17, which established that the High Court’s jurisdiction is barred in such instances.

Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran, 2025(3) RCR (Criminal) 208, and Mohanlal v. Gaurav Kumar, 2025 PHHC 162308, affirming that a "victim" has an absolute right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of BNSS) without requiring special leave from the High Court.

The Court observed that since the acquittal was ordered by a Magistrate in a case involving cognizable and non-bailable offences (Sections 406 and 477-A IPC), the statutory route for appeal is governed by Section 378(1)(b) and the proviso to Section 372.

Applying the ratio from Subhash Chand, the Court reasoned that the High Court is not the appropriate forum for the initial appeal in such cases.

The Court further noted the Supreme Court's reasoning in Celestium Financial, which emphasizes that a victim's right to appeal is a substantive right on par with an accused’s right to appeal a conviction, and should not be circumscribed by the procedural requirement of seeking "leave to appeal" under Section 378(4).

Consequently, the matter was deemed fit for transfer to the Sessions Court rather than being entertained by the High Court.

The Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Registry to transfer the entire record and proceedings to the concerned Sessions Court. The Sessions Court was directed to treat the matter as an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code (or Section 413 of the BNSS), issue fresh notices to the parties, and endeavor to dispose of the case expeditiously.