.jpeg){kind=small}
Case Snapshot
Case Name: Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Citation: 2026 INSC 1052
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: September 22, 2026
Area of Law: Criminal Procedure — Appeal Against Acquittal — Section 413, 415, 419 of BNSS — Victim's Right to Appeal
The Judgment in One Line
The Supreme Court held that a victim's appeal against acquittal by a Judicial Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court, not the High Court, under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS.
Why this Judgement Matters
This judgment provides crucial clarity on the forum for filing appeals against acquittal under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It resolves the confusion arising from the interplay between Sections 413, 415, and 419 of the BNSS. The Court held that under the proviso to Section 413, a victim's appeal against acquittal lies to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction. Since conviction by a Magistrate is appealable to the Sessions Court under Section 415(3), the victim's appeal also lies to the Sessions Court. This ruling will guide victims, advocates, and courts in determining the proper forum for appeals against acquittal.
Background
The petitioner's son, who was suffering from depressive disorders, was admitted to a hospital where he allegedly committed suicide. The petitioner attributed the death to the negligence of a doctor and a nurse. An FIR was registered under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860—a bailable offence. The Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore, acquitted the accused.
The petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal. The High Court rejected the appeal, holding that it was not maintainable and granting liberty to file an appeal before the Sessions Court. The petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, relying on Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora to argue that once a writ petition is admitted by a Single Judge, a Coordinate Bench cannot reject it on maintainability.
Issues Before the Court
Whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the appeal against acquittal on the ground of maintainability.
Whether an appeal from an order of acquittal passed by a Judicial Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court or the High Court under the BNSS.
Whether the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS governs the forum for a victim's appeal against acquittal.
What Did the Supreme Court Hold?
Rajan Chadha Does Not Apply
The petitioner relied on Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora to argue that once a writ petition is admitted by a Single Judge, a Coordinate Bench cannot reject it on maintainability.
The Court distinguished Rajan Chadha, holding that it dealt with a contempt case where a Single Judge had already found contempt. In the present case, the matter was admitted by one Single Judge, but another Single Judge found on the basis of statutory provisions that the appeal was not maintainable. This was perfectly in order.
Forum for Appeal Under BNSS
The Court analysed Sections 413, 415, and 419 of the BNSS.
Section 419 provides that an appeal from acquittal lies to the Court of Session with the sanction of the District Magistrate, only from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence. In all other appeals, from an acquittal passed by an Original Court or an Appellate Court, appeal is enabled to the High Court with the sanction of the State Government.
However, the proviso to Section 413 confers on the victim a right to prefer an appeal against any order of acquittal. Such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
Section 415(3) BNSS
Section 415(3) provides that any person convicted on a trial held by a Magistrate of the First Class or Second Class may appeal to the Court of Session.
Applying the proviso to Section 413, an appeal filed by a victim against an order of acquittal also has to be before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction.
Since conviction by a Magistrate is appealable to the Sessions Court under Section 415(3), the victim's appeal against acquittal also lies to the Sessions Court.
High Court's Order Upheld
The Court found the High Court's order to be perfectly in order and upheld it.
The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Jurisdictional Sessions Court.
The Court directed that if an appeal is filed within one month, it shall be admitted and heard on merits without considering the delay caused by the bona fide proceeding before the High Court.
The Court clarified that it had not made any observation on the merits of the matter or the order of acquittal.
Key Legal Principles
Victim's right to appeal: The proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS confers on the victim a right to prefer an appeal against any order of acquittal.
Forum for victim's appeal: Such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.
Conviction by Magistrate: Under Section 415(3) of the BNSS, an appeal from conviction by a Magistrate of the First or Second Class lies to the Court of Session.
Victim's appeal against acquittal: Since conviction by a Magistrate is appealable to the Sessions Court, the victim's appeal against acquittal also lies to the Sessions Court.
Section 419 BNSS: Section 419 provides for appeals against acquittal but is not applicable when the proviso to Section 413 applies.
Coordinate Bench and maintainability: A Coordinate Bench can reject a matter on maintainability based on statutory provisions, even if admitted by another Single Judge.
Bona fide delay: Delay caused by bona fide proceedings in the wrong forum should not prejudice the appellant.
Important Precedents
Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora: Distinguished. The case dealt with a contempt matter where a Single Judge had already found contempt. It does not apply to cases where a Coordinate Bench finds an appeal not maintainable based on statutory provisions.
Practical Impact
For advocates, this judgment provides a clear precedent on the forum for filing appeals against acquittal under the BNSS. It will be cited in cases where victims seek to challenge acquittal orders. For litigants, it clarifies that appeals against acquittal by a Magistrate lie to the Sessions Court, not the High Court. For law students, it illustrates the interplay between Sections 413, 415, and 419 of the BNSS and the application of the proviso to Section 413.
Lawcurb Quick Insight
The judgment highlights that the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS is the governing provision for a victim's appeal against acquittal. The forum is determined by reference to the court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against conviction, not by the general provisions of Section 419.
Lawcurb Practice Note
When filing an appeal against acquittal on behalf of a victim, determine the proper forum by reference to the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS. If the acquittal was by a Magistrate, the appeal lies to the Sessions Court, not the High Court.
Remember this Ratio
A victim's appeal against acquittal by a Judicial Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, not the High Court.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave Petition.
The High Court's order rejecting the appeal on maintainability was upheld.
The petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal before the Jurisdictional Sessions Court within one month.
The Sessions Court was directed to admit and hear the appeal on merits without considering the delay.
No observations were made on the merits of the matter or the order of acquittal.
Lawcurb Verdict
This judgment is a significant clarification on the forum for filing appeals against acquittal under the BNSS. By holding that a victim's appeal against acquittal by a Magistrate lies to the Sessions Court, the Supreme Court has resolved the ambiguity arising from the interplay between Sections 413, 415, and 419 of the BNSS. The judgment will guide victims and advocates in determining the proper forum and prevent delays caused by filing appeals in the wrong court. A well-reasoned and legally sound order.
Exam Lens
Question 1: What is the forum for a victim's appeal against acquittal under the BNSS?
Answer: Under the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS, a victim's appeal against acquittal lies to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court. Since conviction by a Magistrate is appealable to the Sessions Court under Section 415(3), the victim's appeal against acquittal also lies to the Sessions Court.
Question 2: What did the Supreme Court hold in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora?
Answer: In Rajan Chadha, the Supreme Court held that once a Single Judge has found contempt and granted time to purge it, another Single Judge cannot conclude that no contempt was committed. The decision was distinguished in the present case as it dealt with a contempt matter, not the maintainability of an appeal based on statutory provisions.
Question 3: Can a Coordinate Bench reject a matter on maintainability after it has been admitted by another Single Judge?
Answer: Yes. If the matter was admitted by one Single Judge but another Single Judge finds on the basis of statutory provisions that the appeal is not maintainable, the rejection is perfectly in order. The admission does not preclude a subsequent finding on maintainability based on law.
This report is prepared by Lawcurb for educational and informational purposes only. It is a concise summary of the judgment and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to refer to the original judgment before relying on any legal proposition.