Issue 1: Whether or not the stance of the appeal is maintainable in the court of law?

1.1 No provision of appeal because of limited scope of appeal

It is humbly submitted before the court that the stance of appeal is not maintainable in the
court of law. The maximum imprisonment which a person can be subjected to under sections
304A of IPC read with section 337 of IPC is up to 2 years and if section 372 of CRPC is read
with section 374(b) it is pointed that a sentence which has imprisonment of more than 7 years
is passed by the sessions court can be appealed to the high court. Section 372 of the Code of
Criminal procedure which states that

“no appeal shall lie from any judgement or order of a criminal court except
as provided for by this code or by any other law for the time being in
force1.”

Thus, it to be kept in mind that an appeal is a creature of statute and that there is no inherent
right of appeal2.

This read with section 374 (b) which states that

“any person convicted on a trial held by a sessions judge or an additional

sessions judge or o a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of
imprisonment or more than seven year has been passed against him or
against any other person convicted at the same trial may appeal to the high
court”. 3

According to the such provisions it is important to be pointed out that the present appeal is
not maintainable at the said stage if the above-mentioned provisions are to be considered.

The proviso inserted by Section 372 (Act 5 of 2009) with effect from 31-12-2009, gives a
limited right to the victim to file an appeal in the High Court against any order of a criminal
court acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or the imposition of
inadequate compensation4.

1
Section 372 of CRPC.
2
Pravinder Kansal Vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. CRL.A.1284/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40100/2019.
3
Section 374(b) of CRPC.
4
National Commission for Women vs State of Delhi and Anr. (2010) 12 SCC 599
It is thus submitted that the proviso to section 372 of the CrPC provides a limited right to the
victim to file an appeal. And if all the above-mentioned proviso are kept into consideration
the said appeal is not maintainable in the High Court of Judicature.

1.2 Hierarchy of court should be followed for appeal

It is submitted before the hon’ble court that there is hierarchy which should be followed
when an aggrieved person files an appeal from one court to another. The same is mentioned
under section 378 (1)(b) of the CrPC. The section mentions that Such appeals, that is appeals
against orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable
offence can only be filed in the Sessions Court at the instance of the Public Prosecutor as
directed by the District Magistrate. Section 378(1)(b) uses the words “in any case” but
leaves out orders of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-
bailable offence from the control of the State Government5.

In the present situation the appeal was directly filed before the high court from the
magistrate court, such procedure is not acceptable as there is a process in judiciary which
has to be followed. Accordingly, the appeal should have been filed before the sessions court
and not before the high court.

Hence it is submitted before the hon’ble court that there present appeal is not maintainable
in front of this bench.

K. Rajalingam vs R. Suganthalakshmi Criminal Appeal Nos.89 & 90 of 2020 and Criminal Revision Case
5

Nos.494 & 536 of 2019 & Crl.M.P.No.1789, 1794 & 7289 of 2019.