He appealed an acquittal to the High Court for two years, and it was always the Sessions Court’s to hear

A litigant arguing his own case was told his appeal did not lie, after a different judge had admitted it. The Supreme Court upheld the rejection, explained why that is not inconsistency, and gave him a month to start again.

A Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused. The complainant appealed to the Calcutta High Court. A Single Judge admitted the appeal. When it came up for final hearing, a different Single Judge held that it did not lie to the High Court at all and rejected it, leaving him liberty to go to the Sessions Court.

On 22 September 2026, in Subhas Chandra Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran upheld that. The petitioner appeared in person, assisted by amicus curiae appointed by the Court in March 2026 — Mr. Jayesh Gaurav and Mr. Kuldeep Rai — and the Court heard the amicus, the petitioner himself, and counsel for the State and the private respondents.

The only question arising, as the Court put it, was whether the order rejecting the appeal and leaving liberty to go to the Sessions Court was proper.

Admitted by one judge, rejected by another

The petitioner's first argument was one many litigants would find intuitive: once a Single Judge had admitted the matter, a coordinate Bench could not turn round and reject it on maintainability. He relied on Rajan Chadha and Another v. Sanjay Arora.

The Court was unable to accept the proposition and held it does not emanate from that decision. Rajan Chadha was a contempt case that had reached finality. A Single Judge had held the respondent guilty of intentionally and mala fide violating the Court's orders, found contempt committed, and given four weeks to purge it — failing which the respondent was to file an affidavit showing cause why he should not be punished. When the matter later went before another Single Judge, the show cause notice was discharged on a conclusion that there had been no willful and deliberate disobedience. This Court held that once the first judge had found contempt and posted the matter only to permit purging or an explanation, there was no warrant for a second judge to conclude no contempt had been committed.

That is a finding on merits being undone, which is a different thing entirely. Here the matter was admitted by one Single Judge and, at final hearing, another found on the basis of the statutory provision that the appeal was not maintainable before the High Court. That, the Bench held, is perfectly in order.

Which court hears an appeal from an acquittal

The amicus pointed to Section 378(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under which an appeal from a Magistrate's acquittal lies to the Court of Session only in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence, with any other order of acquittal by an original or appellate court going to the High Court.

The Court immediately noted what the corresponding provision of the new law does. Sub-section (2) of Section 378 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to investigations by the Delhi Special Police Establishment or any other agency empowered to investigate an offence under a Central Act — cases in which the Central Government has to sanction the filing of an appeal against acquittal. Neither the DSPE nor any agency empowered under a Central Act was involved in investigating this case.

The operative provision is Section 419 of the BNSS. It provides for an appeal against acquittal to the Court of Session, with the sanction of the District Magistrate, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence; and in all other appeals, the route follows the appeal from an order of conviction of that court.

So an acquittal by a Magistrate has to be appealed to the court in which a conviction by a Magistrate would be appealed — which is the Sessions Court. The High Court's order was found to be perfectly in order and was upheld.

Two years, and a month to start again

The Court did not leave the petitioner where its ruling would otherwise have put him. If he is still desirous of appealing, he may approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court, and it made clear that an appeal filed within one month of its order shall be admitted and heard on merits without any consideration of delay — the delay having been caused only by a bona fide proceeding the petitioner had taken.

It was equally careful about what it had not decided. No observation was made on the merits of the matter or on the Magistrate's order of acquittal, and the appeal is to be dealt with in accordance with law.

The special leave petition was rejected with those observations, and pending applications along with it.

For anyone appealing an acquittal, the order is a short map of a route that changed with the new Code. The instinct to go to the High Court comes from the older reading of Section 378, and it is wrong for an ordinary Magistrate's acquittal: under the BNSS that appeal belongs to the Sessions Court, with the District Magistrate's sanction where the offence is cognizable and non-bailable. Admission by a High Court judge does not cure it, because maintainability can be taken up whenever the matter is heard — and the years spent in the wrong forum are recoverable only through the kind of indulgence this Bench extended.