Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ajaay vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 December, 2021
Author: Vivek Rusia
1 CRA-5311-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
CRA No. 5311 of 2021
(AJAAY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Indore, Dated : 09-12-2021
Shri Yash Pal Rathore, learned counsel for the appellant.
Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondent/State.
Shri Neelesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
The appellant has filed the present appeal u/s. 374 of the Cr.P.C. being
aggrieved by judgment dated 31.8.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge,
Special Court (Electricity Act) No.7, Indore in Cr. Appeal No.323/2016
whereby the judgment of acquittal dated 25.2.2016 has been set aside and he
has been convicted u/s. 471 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years RI
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State as well as
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have raised an issue of
maintainability of this criminal appeal. According to them, the appellant ought
to have filed a revision against the impugned judgment as there is no provision
in Cr.P.C. for filing second criminal appeal.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits by judgment dated 25.2.2016
the appellant was acquitted by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class.
Against the said judgment, the complainant as well as State preferred an
appeal and in which he has been convicted, therefore, the High Court is first
appellate Court for him. Hence, the appellant has rightly filed the present
criminal appeal u/s. 374 of the Cr.P.C. which provides an appeal against
conviction.
As per sub-section (1) of Section 374, any person convicted on a trial
held by a High Court in its extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction may
appeal to the Supreme Court. As per sub section (2) of Section 374, any
person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Judge or an Additional
Sessions Judge or on a trial held by any other Court in which a sentence of
2 CRA-5311-2021
imprisonment for more than seven years has been passed against him or
against any other person convicted at the same trial, may appeal to the High
Court. Therefore, as per Section 374, criminal appeal lies to the High Court
only on a conviction in a trial held by the Sessions Judge/Additional Sessions
Judge or any other Court in which a sentence of imprisonment for more than
seven years has been passed. In the present case, the appellant has been
convicted not in a trial but by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an
appeal filed by the State as well as by the complainant.
Therefore, in view of the above, the present criminal appeal is not
maintainable. The objection taken by the learned Govt. Advocate as well as
by respondent No.2 is hereby upheld. If the applicant so advised may file an
application for conversion of this appeal into a revision. If any such
application is filed, office is directed to convert this appeal into a revision.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Alok
Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV
Date: 2021.12.10 11:14:34 +05'30'
