Appellate Court Cannot Remit Matter To Trial Court For Sentencing After Reversing Acquittal: Supreme Court

"The powers of the appellate court, in an appeal from an order of acquittal, are enumerated in Section 386(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Those powers do not contemplate that an appellate court, after recording conviction, can remit the matter to the trial court for passing appropriate order of sentence." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated October 8, 2026, held that an appellate court, upon reversing an order of acquittal and recording a conviction, is under a bounden duty to hear the accused on the quantum of sentence and impose an appropriate sentence itself.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that relegating the matter to a trial court for sentencing after an appellate conviction is a procedure unknown to law and contrary to the scheme of Section 386(a) of the CrPC.

Appellate Duty To Hear The Accused

The court emphasized that where an appellate court reverses an acquittal and finds the accused guilty for the first time, it cannot abdicate its judicial function of sentencing. Referring to the precedent in Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets (2008 INSC 1437), the bench reiterated that the appellate court is obligated to adjourn the matter to a suitable date, hear the convict on the question of sentence, and pass an order commensurate with the facts of the case.

Prosecution’s Failure To Establish Entrustment

In the present case, the appellant, a former Cashier-cum-Counter Clerk at a Telephone Department, had been acquitted by the trial court of charges under Section 409 of the IPC. The High Court had reversed this acquittal, a decision the Supreme Court found to be legally flawed. The top court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the basic ingredient of 'entrustment' of property, as the complainant did not produce critical documents like the original cashbook or audit reports despite multiple applications from the accused.

Adverse Inference Against Withholding Parties

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act for its failure to produce these relevant records. The judges observed that the non-production of documents that were in the exclusive custody of the Telephone Department prevented the establishment of the core charges.

Infirmities In Seizure Procedures

Furthermore, the Supreme Court pointed out that the seizure of forty-six articles from the appellant's residence was riddled with procedural failures, including the non-compliance with Section 100(7) of the CrPC. The court noted that because the independent panch witnesses turned hostile and the IO could not adequately corroborate the seizure, the High Court erred in relying on this evidence as an incriminating circumstance.

Standard Of Proof For Accused

Reiterating the principles from Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa (1976 INSC 204), the bench underscored that an accused is not required to prove their case with the same rigour as the prosecution. It is sufficient for the defence to present a version that is probable and competes in credibility with the prosecution's case, thereby creating a reasonable doubt.

Court Rejects Shifting Of Burden

The bench remarked that the High Court had improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the appellant to explain the seized documents, ignoring the fact that the onus of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt remains strictly on the prosecution. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the trial court's order of acquittal and cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2026