S. 401 CrPC | High Courts Cannot Convert Acquittal to Conviction Under Revision Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that High Courts, while exercising criminal revision jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), cannot convert an acquittal into a conviction. The Court clarified that if a High Court finds an acquittal to be unjustified, it should remand the case for re-evaluation rather than directly reversing the acquittal.

Case Background and High Court's Error

The ruling arose from a case involving the dishonor of a cheque, where the trial court initially convicted the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, upon appeal, the appellate court reversed this decision and acquitted the appellant. Dissatisfied with this acquittal, the respondent filed a criminal revision petition before the High Court.

In its judgment, the High Court overturned the appellate court’s decision, converting the acquittal into a conviction without sending the case back to the lower court for further examination. This prompted the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, held that the High Court acted beyond its powers in this matter. It underscored that Section 401(3) CrPC (mirrored by Section 442(3) of the BNSS) explicitly prohibits a High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction while exercising its revisionary powers.

The Court stated, "If the High Court was convinced that the acquittal was wrongful, it should have remanded the matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation of evidence rather than directly ordering a conviction." The bench found the High Court's approach in this case to be legally unsustainable, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal law.

Remand for Reconsideration

In light of this error, the Supreme Court decided that the appropriate course of action would be to remand the case to the appellate court. The bench directed that the case be reconsidered by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Anekal, giving both parties an opportunity to present their arguments afresh.

The judgment read, "We deem it fit to remit the matter back to the appellate court for re-appreciation. Both parties are directed to appear before the appellate court within four weeks from today, after which a final decision shall be rendered based on the merits of the case."

Legal Context: High Court’s Limited Powers in Criminal Revisions

Section 401 CrPC, which governs the revisional powers of High Courts, provides that while the court can scrutinize and correct errors in lower court decisions, it cannot transform an acquittal into a conviction. Section 401(3) is specifically designed to safeguard the rights of accused individuals by preventing courts from bypassing the appeal process and directly imposing a conviction during revisions.

Instead, if a High Court finds that an acquittal is unwarranted, it must follow the process of remanding the case to the lower court for re-examination. This ensures that both parties have an opportunity to present their evidence and arguments in a structured appellate process, avoiding any potential miscarriage of justice that could arise from an abrupt reversal of judgment.

Conclusion

This Supreme Court decision serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s obligation to adhere to procedural norms in criminal cases, particularly regarding the powers of High Courts during revisions. By reinforcing the limitations set by Section 401(3) CrPC, the Court ensures that the rights of accused individuals are protected and that judgments are reached through a proper process of re-evaluation.

The case has been remanded to the appellate court for reconsideration, providing both the appellant and respondent an opportunity to present their respective cases once more.

Case Title: C.N. Shantha Kumar v. M.S. Srinivas

Appearances:

• For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. A. Noor Muhamed, AOR, and others

• For the Respondent(s): Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, Adv., and others.