Section 258 CrPC stoppage before acquittal is treated as discharge, making revision the proper remedy instead of appeal.

An order stopping proceedings under Section 258 CrPC before the stage at which an acquittal can be pronounced has the effect of discharge, not acquittal. Because the complaint was closed on a memo without a completed trial or evidentiary stage leading to acquittal, an appeal under Section 378 CrPC was not maintainable. The proper remedy lay in revision under Section 397 CrPC, and the request to convert the appeals into revision petitions was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order closing a complaint under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amounted to an acquittal so as to make an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 maintainable; (ii) whether the impugned order was in substance an order of discharge, making revision the proper remedy.

Issue (i): Whether an order closing a complaint under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amounted to an acquittal so as to make an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 maintainable.

Analysis: The order challenged was passed before any judgment of acquittal was pronounced. The statutory scheme of Section 258 distinguishes between stoppage of proceedings after evidence of principal witnesses, which results in acquittal, and stoppage in any other case, which results in release of the accused having the effect of discharge. The complaint had been closed on a memo and not after a completed trial leading to acquittal. The Court therefore treated the order as falling within the discharge category rather than acquittal.

Conclusion: The order was not an acquittal and an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order was in substance an order of discharge, making revision the proper remedy.

Analysis: The Court read the impugned order with Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and held that stoppage of proceedings without the evidentiary stage required for acquittal results in discharge. Since the order had the effect of release of the accused without a judgment of acquittal, the proper remedy lay under the revisional provisions and not by way of appeal. In that view, the request to convert the appeals into revision petitions was declined.

Conclusion: The impugned order was an order of discharge and the appellant was required to pursue revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The criminal appeals were held to be not maintainable, and the appellant was left to seek appropriate revisional relief with an application for condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: An order stopping proceedings under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the stage at which acquittal can be pronounced, has the effect of discharge and is challengeable in revision, not by appeal under Section 378.

---