Recently, the Karnataka High Court held that a Sessions Court cannot entertain an appeal against an order of acquittal in bailable offences, as such appeals lie exclusively before the High Court. Setting aside a conviction recorded by the Sessions Court, the Court delivered a sharp reminder on jurisdiction, observing that “an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity”, and that continuation of such proceedings strikes at the heart of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from a road accident that led to criminal charges against the accused for rash and negligent driving, causing injuries and death. After a full trial, the Magistrate’s court acquitted the accused upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. The State challenged the acquittal before the Sessions Court, which reversed the finding and recorded a conviction. Aggrieved by this reversal, the accused approached the High Court, questioning both the merits of the conviction and the Sessions Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the State’s appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant contended that the Sessions Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal against acquittal, since the offences in question were bailable, and therefore squarely governed by Section 378(1)(b) of the CrPC, which mandates that such appeals lie before the High Court. The Counsel argued that the judgment of the first appellate court was void ab initio, being rendered by a forum incompetent in law. On merits, it was further submitted that the prosecution failed to establish rash or negligent driving, that key witnesses had not identified the accused as the driver, and that reliance on the accused’s statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was wholly misplaced.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the State, through the Additional State Public Prosecutor, defended the Sessions Court’s decision, arguing that the conviction was rendered after reappreciation of evidence and was just and proper. The Counsel submitted that no interference was warranted, as the appellate court had exercised its powers correctly while reversing the acquittal on the merits.
Observation of the Court:
The Court, while referring to the amended scheme of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, noted that “in view of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, an appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in a bailable offence, does not lie before the Court of Sessions.”
The Bench found that the prosecution had failed to justify how the Sessions Court could assume jurisdiction in the present case, observing that the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor “failed to demonstrate how an appeal against acquittal in respect of bailable offences… was maintainable before the Court of Sessions.”
The Court observed that “an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity,” explaining that jurisdiction signifies “the power of a Court to hear and determine a cause to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to it.” The Court cautioned that permitting such proceedings to continue would amount to “abuse of process of court, as also, the fundamental right of the accused which is embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Bench further clarified that “jurisdiction cannot be assumed indirectly and even inherent powers can be exercised to correct jurisdictional excess, to prevent miscarriage of justice.” The Court found no fault with the trial court’s acquittal, holding that the first appellate court had “failed to assign cogent reasons for reversing the judgment of acquittal” and that it was incorrect to state that there was “no reason to disbelieve the version of the witnesses.”
Concluding its assessment, the Court stated, “on re-appreciation of the evidence and the records, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court.”
The decision of the Court:
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court and restored the trial court’s acquittal, holding that an appeal against acquittal in bailable offences lies only before the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC, and that any order passed by an incompetent forum is void in law.
Case Title: Sri K. Keshava v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2013
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Basavaraja
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Sabappa B. Malegul
Advocate for the Respondent: Addl. SPP. Asma Kauser
Read Judgment@ Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
