Karnataka HC Sets Aside Conviction, Rules Sessions Court Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences [Read Judgment]

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has set aside a conviction order passed by a Sessions Court, holding that the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against acquittal in bailable offences, as such appeals under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can only be filed before the High Court and not before the Sessions Court.

Justice G. Basavaraja was hearing Criminal Appeal No. 528 of 2013 filed by K. Keshava, challenging his conviction by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of a road accident that occurred on June 16, 2006.

The case involved a tragic collision in which a bus bearing registration No. KA-19/AD-9099, allegedly driven by the appellant, collided with a car travelling from Bondel to Uppinangadi near Surikumerupet in Bantwal Taluk. The prosecution alleged that while attempting to overtake a lorry at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, “the bus came onto the wrong side of the road and collided with the car.” One occupant, Robert, “sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the injuries at the spot,” while others were injured.

The trial court, after examining the evidence, acquitted the accused on March 7, 2009. However, the State Government preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, which reversed the acquittal on February 23, 2013, convicting the accused and sentencing him to varying periods of simple imprisonment and fines for the charged offences.

Since the appeal was filed by an advocate who was subsequently elevated as a Judge, court notice was issued to the appellant. When the appellant failed to appear despite service, “Sri Sabappa B. Malegul, learned Advocate, was appointed as Amicus Curiae.”

The Amicus Curiae raised a two-fold argument addressing both merits and jurisdiction. On jurisdiction, he contended that “the first appellate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Sections 378, 382, and 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in view of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 378.”

The Court examined the amended provision of Section 378 Cr.P.C., as substituted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, effective from June 23, 2006. The Court noted that under Section 378(1)(a), “the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence.”

However, under Section 378(1)(b), “the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court, not being an order under clause (a), or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.”

The Court held:

“In view of the amendment to Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if an order of acquittal is passed by the Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence, the appeal lies to the Court of Session. In all other cases, against a judgment of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, the appeal lies to the High Court.”

Applying this principle, the Court stated that the State ought to have preferred an appeal before the High Court, as the alleged offences were bailable in nature.

The Court observed that “the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has failed to demonstrate how an appeal against acquittal in respect of bailable offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304A IPC was maintainable before the Court of Session.”

Reiterating settled principles on jurisdiction, the Court held that “an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity,” noting that jurisdiction encompasses authority over the parties, the subject matter, and the issues adjudicated.

The Court further emphasized that under Section 378(1)(b), “an appeal against a judgment of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in a bailable offence does not lie before the Court of Session.”

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court observed that a judgment pronounced without jurisdiction is void ab initio.

Given that the incident occurred in 2006, acquittal was recorded in 2009, and the State preferred an appeal before an incorrect forum, the Court held that the Sessions Court’s order was “patently without jurisdiction,” and that continuation of proceedings amounted to an abuse of process and a violation of the accused’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Critically observing the State’s conduct, the Court remarked that the State, being parens patriae, ought to have acted with due diligence.

On merits, the Amicus Curiae submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses had identified the accused as the driver of the bus at the time of the accident. The Court noted that PW-2, William Lobo, though a crucial witness, was not tendered for cross-examination and his evidence was not relied upon by the trial court.

The Court further observed that PW-3 and PW-4 failed to identify the accused and were not reliable eyewitnesses. The Court agreed with the trial court’s assessment that the witnesses were interested witnesses and that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying Supreme Court precedents on appellate interference with acquittals, the Court concluded that the first appellate court failed to assign cogent reasons for reversing the acquittal.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Sessions Court’s conviction order dated February 23, 2013, and confirmed the trial court’s acquittal order dated March 7, 2009. The appellant was acquitted of all charges, and refund of any fine deposited was directed.

The Court also directed the Registry to pay ₹10,000 to Sri Sabappa B. Malegul, Amicus Curiae, for his assistance.

Case Title: K. Keshava v. State of Karnataka

[Read Judgment]