Vishnu Kumar Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., 2026

The appellant was tried before the Judicial Magistrate First Class and was acquitted of the criminal charges.

Dissatisfied with the acquittal, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 378 CrPC (Section 419 BNSS).

The Sessions Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, reversed the order of acquittal and convicted the appellant for the first time.

Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellant filed a statutory appeal before the High Court under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS).

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that no statutory appeal lies against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction.

The High Court observed that the appropriate remedy available to the appellant was to file a criminal revision.

The appellant challenged the High Court's decision before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that no statutory appeal under Section 374 CrPC (Section 415 BNSS) is maintainable against a conviction recorded by a Sessions Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction after reversing an acquittal.

The Court observed that Section 374 permits an appeal only against a conviction recorded by the court that has itself conducted the trial.

It clarified that a Sessions Court hearing an appeal against acquittal does not conduct the trial but merely exercises appellate jurisdiction.

The Court held that the expression "on a trial" in Section 374 refers only to the court before which the trial commenced and concluded.

It rejected the argument that the doctrine of continuation of proceedings transforms an appellate court into a trial court.

The Court ruled that the doctrine merely ensures procedural continuity and does not alter the nature of appellate jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court declared the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Arun Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2019) to be bad in law insofar as it held otherwise.

The Court affirmed the High Court's order dismissing the statutory appeal as not maintainable.

Liberty was granted to the appellant to file a criminal revision before the High Court against the Sessions Court's judgment.

It clearly distinguishes between trial jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction, thereby preventing an unwarranted expansion of statutory appeal provisions.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that a right of appeal is purely statutory and cannot be inferred unless expressly provided by law.

The decision reinforces that appellate courts exercising appellate powers cannot be equated with courts conducting trials.

By rejecting the broad application of the doctrine of continuation of proceedings, the Court clarified an important procedural principle in criminal jurisprudence.

The ruling removes uncertainty regarding the remedy available when a Sessions Court reverses an acquittal and records a conviction.

The judgment overrules the contrary view adopted by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Arun Sharma, thereby ensuring uniformity in criminal procedural law.

The decision will guide litigants and courts in determining the proper procedural remedy under both the CrPC and the BNSS.

The judgment strengthens the principle that statutory rights of appeal must be interpreted strictly in accordance with legislative intent.