Supreme Court Rules Appeal Not Maintainable Against Conviction by Sessions Court Reversing Acquittal; Revisional Remedy Affirmed, In Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, SC clarifies no appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) lies against appellate conviction by Sessions Court; High Court’s dismissal of appeal upheld, directing remedy via revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC
In a landmark judgment dated July 30, 2026, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh has definitively settled a contentious legal question concerning the maintainability of appeals against convictions recorded by Sessions Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction after reversing trial court acquittals.
The appellant, Vishnu Kumar Gupta, was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhind, in a dowry harassment and cruelty case filed by his wife. The complainant subsequently appealed to the Sessions Court, which reversed the acquittal and convicted Gupta under Sections 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment and fines.
Gupta challenged the Sessions Court’s conviction before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The High Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that such an appeal is not maintainable as it would amount to a second appeal, which is not provided for under the statute. Instead, it directed the appellant to seek remedy by way of revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.
The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and undertook a detailed examination of the statutory provisions, settled principles, and precedents. The key legal question was whether an appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction, reversing a trial court’s acquittal.
The Court emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory right and strictly governed by the provisions of the statute. It interpreted the phrase “convicted on a trial held by” in Section 374 to mean a conviction rendered by the court that actually conducted the trial—from framing charges to pronouncement of judgment and sentence. A Sessions Court hearing an appeal exercises appellate jurisdiction, not trial jurisdiction, and thus, the conviction recorded by it cannot be regarded as a conviction “on a trial held by” that court.
Rejecting the appellant’s contention and the contrary view taken by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in a prior decision, the Supreme Court held that the statutory scheme does not envisage a second appeal against a conviction recorded for the first time by the appellate court upon reversal of acquittal. Therefore, no appeal under Section 374 CrPC (or Section 415 BNSS) lies in such circumstances.
The Court further clarified the distinction between appellate and revisional jurisdiction. While the appellate court has plenary powers to reappreciate evidence and decide the case afresh on facts and law, the revisional court’s jurisdiction is supervisory and corrective, meant to examine legality, jurisdictional errors, procedural irregularities, and manifest perversity. However, the Court acknowledged that in cases of first conviction by an appellate court, the revisional court is expected to exercise greater scrutiny and may exercise powers akin to an appellate court under Section 401(1) CrPC to prevent miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s dismissal of the appeal as not maintainable and dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Vishnu Kumar Gupta. It granted liberty to the appellant to file a revision petition challenging the conviction and sentence under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC (or corresponding BNSS provisions).
The judgment underscores the careful balance in criminal procedure between statutory rights and judicial remedies, affirming that appellate remedies must be strictly traced to statutory provisions, and revisions serve as the corrective mechanism where the statute does not provide for further appeals.
Bottom Line:
An appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (corresponding to Section 415 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is not maintainable against a judgment of conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction and reversing an order of acquittal passed by a Trial Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 374, Section 372, Section 397, Section 401, Section 386, Section 391, Section 378, Section 419 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; corresponding Sections 415, 413, 438, 442, 427, 419 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Sections 498A, 323, 34 of Indian Penal Code; Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 2950558
