Appellate jurisdiction in cheque dishonour acquittals lies with the High Court, not the Sessions Court, and an unauthorised reversal fails.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an appeal against acquittal lies to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, with further recourse under Article 136, and not to the Sessions Court or First Appellate Court. The appellate scheme therefore does not confer jurisdiction on a lower appellate court to entertain such an acquittal appeal. Where the First Appellate Court proceeded without jurisdiction and reversed the acquittal, the resulting conviction could not be sustained; the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the conviction based on such appeal could be sustained.

Analysis: The complainant's remedy against an acquittal in a case triable under Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 lay before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with further recourse under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. An appeal before the Sessions Court / First Appellate Court against such acquittal was not competent under the criminal appellate scheme. As the First Appellate Court entertained the appeal without jurisdiction and reversed the acquittal, the resulting conviction could not stand.

Conclusion: The First Appellate Court lacked jurisdiction to reverse the acquittal, and its judgment was set aside. The acquittal recorded by the Trial Court was restored, resulting in a decision in favour of the appellant.

---