Victim’s Right to Appeal Against Acquittal Transferred to Sessions Court: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has reinforced the procedural sanctity of victim-led appeals, ruling that challenges against a Magistrate's acquittal in specific criminal offences must be adjudicated by the Sessions Court rather than the High Court. This decisive shift ensures that the victim's right to appeal, now placed on par with the rights of the accused, is channelled through the appropriate statutory forum to prevent jurisdictional overreach.

Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak presided over the matter, considering an appeal filed by a complainant against a trial court order acquitting several individuals of charges under the Indian Penal Code. The Court navigated complex procedural questions regarding the proper appellate forum for victims under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the newly enacted BNSS.

Key Takeaways

Sessions Court Jurisdiction for Magistrate Acquittals

Appeals against acquittal orders passed by a Magistrate in cognizable and non-bailable offences must be filed in the Sessions Court, not the High Court.

Victim Rights Parity

A victim's right to prefer an appeal is now legally recognized as being on par with an accused's right to appeal a conviction, intended to be unconditional.

Statutory Transition to BNSS

The Court acknowledged the transition from the old procedural code to the BNSS, directing the registry to number transferred cases under the relevant new provisions.

Authoritative Precedent Pending

While directing the transfer, the Court noted that the specific question of whether a complainant under certain acts is a 'victim' is currently pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court.

Judicial Rationale on Appellate Forums

The Court examined the interplay between Section 372 and Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It relied on the interpretation that the State cannot direct a Public Prosecutor to file an appeal in the High Court against a Magistrate's acquittal in cognizable and non-bailable cases due to the bar in Section 378(1)(b). Instead, such appeals lie with the Sessions Court.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The victim of a crime must have an absolute right to prefer an appeal which cannot be circumscribed by any condition precedent... the right of a victim of a crime must be placed on par with the right of an accused who has suffered a conviction, who, as a matter of right can prefer an appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC."

Furthermore, the Court noted the distinction created by Parliament to ensure victims do not necessarily require special leave from the High Court when the proviso to Section 372 is applicable.

Directions Issued to Registry and Lower Court

The Court has the following directions:

"this appeal is disposed of with a direction to the Registry to transfer the appeal to the concerned Sessions Court. After it is transferred to the concerned Sessions Court, it has to be treated as an Appeal under the proviso under Section 372 of the Code / Section 413 of BNSS and numbered accordingly and issue notice to the parties. The Registry is directed to transfer the entire record of the case, including the certified copies of the order impugned and record & proceedings, if lying with this Court, to the concerned lower Appellate Court, forthwith. Considering that the matter has been pending for considerable time, the learned lower Appellate Court is required to make endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible."

Ratio

An appeal against an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of cognizable and non-bailable offences resides with the Court of Sessions at the instance of the Public Prosecutor or the victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC (now Section 413 of BNSS). The High Court’s jurisdiction is excluded in such instances to maintain the statutory hierarchy of appeals.

Background

The appellant, Vanker Gemarbhai Devabhai, had filed a complaint against several respondents alleging offences under Sections 427, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Following an investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. However, on December 17, 2011, the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sami delivered a judgment acquitting the respondents of all charges. The appellant challenged this acquittal before the High Court under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

During the proceedings, the Court took note of Subhash Chand vs State (Delhi Administration) ( "(2013) 2 SCC 17": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 149), where the Supreme Court clarified the limitations of Section 378 regarding Magistrate-led acquittals. The Court also considered State of Chhattisgarh, Through Its Station House Officer Vs. Mohanlal Bagde and M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc., which discussed the unconditional right of a victim to appeal under the proviso to Section 372. The Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the findings in M/s. Celestium Financial vs. A.Gnanasekaran Etc. regarding the definition of a 'victim' are currently under review by a larger bench in M/s. Everest Automobiles Vs. M/s. Ranjit Enterprises. Consequently, without deciding on the merits, the High Court directed the transfer of the case to the competent Sessions Court for expeditious disposal.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1167 of 2012
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:56124
Case Title: VANKER GEMARBHAI DEVABHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): MR MM TIRMIZI
For the Respondent(s): MR MAHESHB BARIYA, MS JIRGA JHAVERI ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 19248