Supreme Court: High Courts Can't Convert Order Of Acquittal To Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction U/S 401 of CRPC

The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that the High Court has limited power of Revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C’). More importantly, under sub-section (3) of Section 401, the High Court is not competent to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. {Para 4}

6. The sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. clearly says that the High Court does not have the authority to convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction while exercising its Revisional power. But that precisely was done by the High Court under the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2023.

7. The impugned decision of the High Court is therefore found to be unsustainable. If the High Court was convinced about a wrongful acquittal, the High Court in Revision could not have ordered for conviction. It ought to have remitted the matter back to the appellate court to re-appreciate the matter. This course was not adopted.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

C.N. SHANTHA KUMAR Vs  M.S. SRINIVAS 

Dated: SEPTEMBER 02, 2024.

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Tripurari Ray, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant. The respondent (complainant) is represented by Mr.

Mahesh Thakur, learned counsel.

3. On the basis of the complaint filed by the respondent,

proceedings were drawn up under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881 and the learned trial court ordered for

conviction of the appellant. On appeal, the trial court’s judgment

was reversed and the accused was acquitted. When the matter was

taken in Revision before the High Court, under the impugned

judgment, the High Court had reversed the appellate Court’s

acquittal order and ordered conviction for the appellant.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit

that the High Court has limited power of Revision under Section 401

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Cr.P.C’). More importantly, under sub-section (3) of Section

401, the High Court is not competent to convert a finding of

acquittal into one of conviction.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent (complainant) in his

turn submits that this was a case which merited conviction of the

appellant and therefore the High Court’s order cannot be faulted.

6. Whether a particular case merits conviction or not is not the

issue before us in the present proceedings. The sub-section (3) of

Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. clearly says that the High Court does

not have the authority to convert a finding of acquittal into one

of conviction while exercising its Revisional power. But that

precisely was done by the High Court under the impugned judgment

dated 19.01.2023.

7. The impugned decision of the High Court is therefore found to

be unsustainable. If the High Court was convinced about a wrongful

acquittal, the High Court in Revision could not have ordered for

conviction. It ought to have remitted the matter back to the

appellate court to re-appreciate the matter. This course was not

adopted.

8. Having considered the above, we deem it appropriate to remit

the matter back to the appellate court i.e. the Additional District

and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal. Both

parties should appear before the said Court within four weeks from

today. An appropriate decision should then be rendered by the

appellate court after considering the contention of the rival

parties. It is ordered accordingly.

9. With the above, the appeal stands disposed of.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J.

(HRISHIKESH ROY)

..................J.

(S.V.N. BHATTI)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 02, 2024.

Print Page