High Court Cannot Entertain Second Appeal Against Acquittal If Appellate Remedy Already Exhausted; Cannot Convert Acquittal To Conviction In Revision: Supreme Court

"Scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contemplate the maintainability of an appeal to the High Court at the instance of the same party once the appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal has already been exercised," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a High Court cannot entertain a second appeal against an acquittal at the instance of the same party once the initial appellate jurisdiction has already been exercised.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that when an order of acquittal has already been affirmed by a Sessions Court in appeal, the only permissible course of action for a complainant is to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court.

The matter arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, involving the dishonour of a cheque for Rs. 2 lakhs. The Trial Court initially acquitted the appellant-accused in August 2018. This acquittal was subsequently challenged by the complainant before the Sessions Judge, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Trial Court's judgment in January 2020.

Thereafter, the complainant preferred a further appeal before the Madras High Court. The High Court allowed this appeal, reversed the concurrent findings of acquittal, and convicted the appellant, sentencing him to six months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court assailing this conviction.

The primary question before the court was whether a second appeal is maintainable before the High Court after an appeal against acquittal has already been dismissed by the Sessions Court. The court was also called upon to determine the scope of a High Court's power to convert an acquittal into a conviction while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

High Court Commits Error In Entertaining Second Appeal

The Supreme Court noted that the High Court committed an "error apparent on the face of record" by entertaining the petition filed by the respondent-complainant, which was styled as an appeal. The bench emphasized that the procedural law does not allow for a second appellate layer for the same party once the appellate remedy against an acquittal has been exhausted.

The bench observed that the High Court overlooked the finality attached to the earlier adjudication by the Sessions Court. By entertaining the appeal, the High Court acted outside the scheme contemplated by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

"The scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not contemplate the maintainability of an appeal to the High Court at the instance of the same party once the appellate jurisdiction against an order of acquittal has already been exercised."

Revisional Jurisdiction Limited; Cannot Convert Acquittal Into Conviction

The Court clarified that the only legal avenue available to the complainant after the Sessions Court's dismissal was the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC. However, the bench highlighted that the powers under revisional jurisdiction are strictly limited and do not extend to reversing an acquittal into a conviction.

The bench noted that even if the High Court were to treat the matter as a revision, it was legally precluded from substituting a finding of acquittal with one of guilt. At most, the High Court could have directed a de novo trial if the lower court's judgment was found to suffer from manifest illegality or perversity.

"It is well settled that, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction against judgment of acquittal, the High Court is precluded from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction."

High Court Overlooked Finality Of Earlier Adjudication

The Supreme Court found that the respondent-complainant had not specifically challenged the Sessions Judge’s order dated January 22, 2020, which had affirmed the acquittal. Instead, the High Court proceeded to decide the matter as a fresh appeal against the Trial Court's judgment, ignoring the intervening appellate order.

The bench described this as an "unjust exercise of appellate jurisdiction." It noted that despite the High Court’s own records showing that a prior appeal had been rejected by the Sessions Court, it nonetheless proceeded to decide the matter, thereby violating the principles of procedural finality.

Compounding Of Offence Under Section 147 NI Act

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the appellant-accused offered to pay a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, which is double the original cheque amount, to the complainant. Three demand drafts totaling this amount were handed over to the counsel for the respondent-complainant during the hearing.

In light of this settlement, the Court exercised its powers to compound the offence. The bench directed that the conviction recorded by the High Court be set aside and the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act be compounded in terms of Section 147 of the Act.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s judgment was procedurally unsustainable as it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal against an acquittal. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside. Given the payment of the settlement amount, the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

Date of Decision: April 17, 2026