Appeal in case of acquittal
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with appeal in case of acquittal. Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), 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 C The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2) and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5), 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 [or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, the Central Government may also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), to the High Court from the order of acquittal.
(3) No appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub- section (1) or under sub-section (2).
1 Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 29, for certain words (w.e.f. 18-12-1978).
2 Ins by s. 30, ibid. (w.e.f. 18-12-78).
Section 378, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 419 Appeal in case of acquittal Text carried over almost unchanged 95%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-4.pdf 2007-02-15 DATE VERIFIED. Crl A 853/2006. Thakker/Panta. Appeal against acquittal under s.378: the High Court has full power to review, reappreciate and come to its own conclusion on the evidence (Sheo Swarup / Sanwat Singh); the double presumption of innocence is a guiding principle, not a legal embargo against reversal when the only reasonable view is guilt.
On this section: s.378 appeal against acquittal is a full appeal; the High Court may reverse after reappreciation if the only reasonable view is guilt (Chandrappa, Sheo Swarup / Sanwat Singh).
-
State of M. P vs Giriraj Dubey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
High Courts are obligated to provide cogent and reasoned orders when declining to grant leave to appeal against acquittals under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the leave stage, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case or arguable points have been raised, not whether the acquittal judgment would ultimately be set aside. Cryptic or readymade observations that merely restate the trial court's findings without explanation constitute improper disposal that denies proper judicial scrutiny and are unsustainable. The requirement for reasoned orders is mandatory, reflecting constitutional mandate for judicial discipline and the rule that reasons are the heartbeat of every judicial conclusion.
On this section: Establishes the requirement for leave to appeal against acquittal recorded by Court of Session; critical procedural safeguard requiring appellate scrutiny before substantive appeal can proceed
-
Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs Vijay D Savli
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The drawer of a dishonoured cheque is solely and personally liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, irrespective of whether the cheque was drawn on a personal account or for discharging company obligations. The liability is determined by strict interpretation of the statutory provision, which makes the drawer alone liable for the offence. Criminal and quasi-criminal provisions must be strictly construed, and proceedings cannot be used to impose liability on persons not intended by the statute to be liable. A Managing Director or Joint Managing Director need not be specifically averred in the complaint to be incharge of and responsible for company affairs; their position itself establishes this fact, making them liable under Section 138 even when the company is not a party.
On this section: Provides for leave to appeal to High Court against conviction or order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in criminal cases.
-
A. K. Devaiah vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a woman dies by burns or bodily injury within seven years of marriage and it is shown through consistent testimony of credible witnesses that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband for or in connection with a demand for dowry, the mandatory presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act applies, shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption. The testimony of the deceased's close family members regarding the dowry demand, the cruelty inflicted, and the harassment endured constitutes admissible and credible evidence to establish the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304-B IPC. Once these three ingredients (abnormal death within seven years, cruelty/harassment for dowry before death, and the causal nexus) are proven, the legal presumption of dowry death operates automatically unless rebutted by the accused, and a trial court's acquittal based on suspicion and conjecture without properly appreciating such evidence is wholly perverse and liable to be set aside by appellate courts.
On this section: Appeal by State - Provisions allowing State to appeal against acquittal orders; used by prosecution to challenge trial court's acquittal in High Court.
-
Ramaiah @ Rama vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When essential ingredients of a dowry-related criminal offence, particularly the demand for dowry and subsequent cruelty or harassment for non-payment thereof, are not established beyond reasonable doubt through credible evidence, conviction under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Section 498-A, and Section 304-B IPC cannot be sustained. The presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act can only be invoked after the prerequisite of proved dowry-related cruelty or harassment is satisfied. When an appellate court reviews an acquittal and finds that two views are reasonably possible on the evidence, with one view being favourable to the accused as taken by the trial court, the appellate court should not disturb such acquittal unless the trial court's reasoning is clearly unreasonable or vitiated by manifest illegality. Courts must scrutinize witness credibility carefully when inconsistencies exist between original complaint and later testimony, and when significant delays in lodging FIR lack satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Appeal by State in cases of acquittal; State successfully appealed to High Court against trial court acquittal, but Supreme Court set aside this appeal
-
Surya Baksh Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to dismiss criminal appeals filed by convicts who deliberately obtain bail or exemption from surrender and thereafter wilfully abscond or fail to prosecute their appeals, provided the Court has first taken reasonable steps to secure the appellant's presence (including proceedings against sureties). However, such dismissal should be preceded by examination of the case on merits where practicable, and the Court must ensure that the appellant has had a fair opportunity to be heard. The ends of justice, which include protection of society and victims' rights alongside convict rights, justify application of Section 482 to prevent abuse of the appellate process by convicts seeking to circumvent their sentences.
On this section: Declares that appeals against acquittal require express leave of High Court
-
Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere presence of an accused in the same vehicle with the actual perpetrator of a crime is insufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. For conviction under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds, preplanning, and shared common intention to commit the specific crime. The absence of such evidence cannot be cured by mere presence at the scene or in the same vehicle. An appellate court can only reverse an acquittal if the trial court judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or if only one conclusion of guilt is possible from the evidence on record.
On this section: Appeal against acquittal - Governs the scope and procedure for State appeal against acquittal orders
-
Md. Ankoos vs Pub. Pros. High Court of A. P. Hyderabad
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When appellants have been expressly charged under Section 148 IPC for rioting with deadly weapons and acquitted thereof by both the trial court and the appellate court, they cannot be legally convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC which creates constructive liability based on membership of unlawful assembly with common object. The common substratum necessary for both Sections 148 and 149 (i.e., the unlawful assembly with common object) must exist for Section 149 constructive liability to apply. Further, a High Court cannot reverse a trial court's judgment of acquittal by using case diary statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to verify witness credibility or overcome contradictions without following the mandatory procedure under Section 172 Cr.P.C. and Section 145 Indian Evidence Act.
On this section: Appellate court powers against judgment of acquittal - extensively discussed to establish that acquittals cannot be reversed except for very substantial reasons
-
Central Bureau of Investigation vs Shyam Bihari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court's power to reappreciate evidence is not circumscribed by limitation, but the appellate court must not interfere with order of acquittal merely because a contrary view is permissible, particularly where the trial court's view is a plausible view based on proper appreciation of evidence and is not vitiated by ignorance or misreading of relevant evidence. Circumstantial evidence must form a chain so far complete as to indicate that in all human probability the persons facing trial and none else committed the crime. When circumstances leave reasonable doubt as to identity of perpetrator or manner of commission of crime, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused. The mere presence of accused at scene of crime, possession of similar weapon, and partial ballistic match to some recovered cartridges are insufficient to establish complete chain of circumstantial evidence when fatal injury was caused by different weapon, other cartridges were from different rifle, and no credible eyewitness identified the accused.
On this section: Applied by High Court to reject application for leave to appeal against acquittal. Court found insufficient grounds to grant leave as circumstantial chain was incomplete and medical evidence contradicted prosecution case.
-
The State of Madhya Pradesh vs Rampal Kushwaha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once an appellate court has decided an appeal against acquittal on merit, the order becomes final under section 393 Cr.P.C., and no further appeal by the State under section 378(3) Cr.P.C. is maintainable, even if the State was not made a party in the original appeal. The finality principle applies regardless of whether the appeal was filed by victims under amended section 372 Cr.P.C. or by any other party. The State's remedy in such circumstances is through revision, section 482 Cr.P.C., or constitutional remedies under Article 226 and 227, not through a fresh application for leave to appeal.
On this section: State's right to file appeal against order of acquittal subject to provisions of sub-section (3)
-
Smt Gracy Pereira vs Parish Priest
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An interim order dismissing an application is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 378(4) CrPC, and where a party has complied with court orders for document production, allegations of willful disobedience under Section 175 IPC cannot be sustained.
On this section: Basis for revisional jurisdiction; the court examined whether this section permits revision of interim orders
-
R.V.Ramaiah vs T.H.Manjunatha
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a private complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, when a Magistrate passes an order of acquittal, the complainant cannot appeal against such acquittal order before the Sessions Court. The exclusive remedy available to the complainant is to file an application for special leave to appeal before the High Court under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Only after the High Court grants special leave can the complainant prefer an appeal before the High Court. An appeal against acquittal in a complaint case cannot be filed in the Sessions Court under any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code.
On this section: Correctly applicable provision; court held that in complaint cases where acquittal is passed, complainant can appeal only to High Court by filing application for special leave to appeal, not to Sessions Court. This is the exclusive remedy available to private complainants.
-
State Of Rajasthan vs Dharam Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court can interfere with an order of acquittal only when the judgment suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission to consider material evidence, or when no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt beyond reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence on record. In the present case, the trial court's acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, and therefore the appellate court cannot reverse it merely because another view was also possible.
On this section: Appeal against acquittal; governs the scope of appellate jurisdiction
-
D.d.a. vs K.p.trading Co.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A subsequent prosecution for a continuing offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act is contingent upon a conviction in the first offence. The statutory language 'after conviction for the first commission of the offence' in Section 29(2) establishes this as a prerequisite. Additionally, a sanction order for prosecution must contain reference to earlier cases and demonstrate application of mind; a sanction passed in a mechanical manner without such reference is invalid. In appeals against acquittal, the principles of double presumption of innocence and benefit of doubt ordinarily operate in favour of the accused, and the trial court's acquittal should not be lightly interfered with.
On this section: Appeal against acquittal; principles for appellate review of acquittals discussed in context of this section
-
R.haribabu vs T.k.ravichandran
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A public servant cannot be convicted under Section 169 IPC for unlawfully purchasing property unless the prosecution adduces acceptable and credible evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the public servant actually purchased or bid for the property either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others. Mere suspicion, circumstantial involvement, or signing as a witness to a transaction is insufficient to establish guilt. The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the essential ingredients of the offence with concrete evidence.
On this section: Section 378 CrPC provides for criminal appeals to the High Court against judgments of lower courts. The present appeal was filed under this section.
-
Sardar Harvinder Singh vs Chobrolu Hutasana Rao
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the cheque amount remains unpaid, the sentence imposed by the trial court must be of such nature as to give proper effect to the object of the legislation and must be commensurate to the gravity of the offense. A sentence consisting only of a fine that is grossly disproportionate to the cheque amount (such as a fine of Rs. 10,000 for a cheque of Rs. 1,00,000) without any substantive imprisonment, and without regard to the legislative intent to protect creditors and ensure accountability of cheque drawers, is inadequate and defeats the very object of the enactment. Personal circumstances of the accused, such as health conditions or family dependents, cannot justify imposing a sentence that is not commensurate to the gravity of the offense. The existence of a civil decree obtained in separate proceedings is not a ground to impose an inadequate criminal sentence. A criminal revision petition by a complainant challenging the inadequacy of sentence is maintainable under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, as the victim has the right to appeal against inadequate sentence under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
On this section: Cited regarding appeal in case of acquittal and special leave to appeal to High Court; distinguished as not applicable to conviction cases
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.06.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN CRL.APPEAL.NO.228 OF 2013 Vs R.Shanthi ... Appellant Mrs.L.Sagitha Issabella ... Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Fast Track Court Magestrial Level-II, Coimbatore, made in C.C.No.238 of 2011 dated 09.04.2012. For Petitioner : M/s.V.V.Sairam For Respondent : No appearance J U D G M E N T This appeal has been …
-
… JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. CRL.L.P. 81/2021 CRL.L.P. 86/2022 & CRL.M.A. 3255/2022; CRL.M.A. 3256/2022 1. The aforesaid two Criminal Leave Petitions under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") have been preferred by the Petitioner, State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Complainant, "Mrs. J." and "Ms. XYZ" (minor) respectively, against the impugned Judgment dated 28.01.2020 passed by the learned ASJ, (POCSO) (Children Court), …
-
… Phalwan Singh R/o H.No. 8, Gulshan Park, Nangloi, Delhi ....Respondent Through: Mr. Uttam Dutt, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J. 1. Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' ) has been filed on behalf of the Appellant/State against the Judgment dated 11.02.2020, whereby the learned ASJ-06 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, has acquitted the Respondent, Narender Singh for the offence under Section 354/354B of …
Questions about Section 378
What have the courts held on Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (15 Feb 2007) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.378 appeal against acquittal is a full appeal; the High Court may reverse after reappreciation if the only reasonable view is guilt (Chandrappa, Sheo Swarup / Sanwat Singh). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 378, section 378 CRPC, section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (15 Feb 2007).
What should I read with Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 419 (Appeal in case of acquittal), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 378, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.