Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal against acquittal; High Court is the proper forum

The appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of acquittal was found to be not maintainable before the Sessions Court under Section 378(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). Citing relevant case law, the court held that the only remedy available for appealing against an order of acquittal in a complaint case is to the High Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.PC. Consequently, the Sessions Court's judgment of conviction and sentence was deemed null and void, leading to the restoration of the original judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of acquittal.
2. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court to entertain the appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.PC.
3. Validity of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court.

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in a complaint case was maintainable before the Sessions Court under Section 378(2) of Cr.PC. The court highlighted that "Section 378(4) of Cr.PC provides for an appeal as against an order of acquittal passed in any case instituted upon a complaint and such an appeal would lie only to the High Court and if only the High Court grants special leave to appeal."

2. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Court:
The petitioner argued that the appeal under Section 378(2) Cr.PC before the Sessions Court was not maintainable, citing precedents including SUBHASH CHAND VS STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION). The court noted, "The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subhash Chand's case supra has clearly held that as against the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate in a complaint case, the only remedy available to the complainant irrespective of the fact that it is a private person or a public servant or the State or State Authority, is to file an appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.PC to the High Court."

3. Validity of the Judgment and Order of Conviction and Sentence:
The court found that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 378(2) Cr.PC. The judgment stated, "The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.410/2008 being without jurisdiction, is a nullity in the eye of law, and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside."

Conclusion:
The revision petition was allowed. The court set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 01.10.2014 passed by the Sessions Court and restored the judgment of acquittal dated 05.09.2005 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.35/1997.

---