Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIX: Appeals
Section 378: Appeal in case of acquittal
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
[(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (5),—
(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate order of acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.]
(2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code, [the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal—
(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non-bailable offence;
(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court [not being an order under clause (a)] or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision].
(3) [No appeal to the High Court] under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.
(4) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.
(5) No application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall 1. Subs. by Act 45 of 1978, s. 29, for certain words (w.e.f. 18-12-1978). 2. Subs. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 31, for certain words (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 3. Subs. by s. 31, ibid., for —the High Court‖ (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 4. Subs. by Act 22 of 2018, s. 21 (w.e.f. 21-4-2018). 5. Subs. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 32, for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 6. Subs. by s. 32, ibid., for certain words (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 7. Subs. by s. 32, ibid., for —No appeal‖ (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.
(6) If, in any case, the application under sub-section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2).
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 378
-
State of Chhattisgarh v. Amit Aishwarya Jogi
Whether the three-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Lalu Prasad Yadav and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. lays down the correct proposition of law, or whether the same requires reference to, and resolution by a larger…
-
Mahaveer v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Issue arose whether the acquittal of the appellant-director of the company was correctly reversed by the High Court and whether his conviction u/ss.39 and 44 of the Electricity Act, 1910 for committing theft of energy…
-
Khem Singh (D) Through Lrs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc.
During pendency of these appeals, son of original appellant (since deceased) filed an application seeking setting aside of the abatement and for substitution. Whether the applicant is entitled to be substituted in place…
-
M Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Whether the High Court erred in convicting the appellant-accused no.1 u/s.120B, IPC and ss.7, 13(2) r/w s.13(1)(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by reversing the finding of acquittal of the Trial Court.
-
Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu & Another
Whether the appellant-company falls under the definition of ‘victim’ in terms of s.2(wa) r/w the proviso to s.372, CrPC or whether s.378, CrPC would prevail in the facts and circumstances; whether an appeal under the…
-
Sachin v. State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether, the High Court could enhance the sentence under its revisional powers in a convict’s appeal against conviction.
-
M/s Celestium Financial v. A. Gnanasekaran Etc.
Issue arose as regards the maintainability of an appeal under proviso to s.372 CrPC against order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a private complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, by treating the…
-
Manoj Rameshlal Chhabriya v. Mahesh Prakash Ahuja & Anr.
What are the parameters that a High Court should keep in mind while granting or refusing a leave to appeal filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C.
-
Mahabir & Ors. v. State of Haryana
Whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s.401 r/w. s.397 of the CrPC; Whether Proviso to s.372 of CrPC creates a…
-
Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Matter pertains to the correctness of the judgment of the High Court setting aside the acquittal by trial court and convicting the appellants u/s.302/34 IPC.
-
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal as a first Court on independent appreciation of evidence and recording its own findings to hold the accused appellants (A-1, A-2 and A-3) guilty of charge u/s.…
-
Thakore Umedsing Nathusing v. State of Gujarat
Scope of interference by High Court in an appeal challenging acquittal of the accused by the trial Court; standard of proof required to bring home charges in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence.
-
Mohd Abaad Ali & Anr. v. Directorate of Revenue
Whether benefit of s.5 r/w. ss. 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be availed in an appeal against acquittal.
-
Vishnu Kumar Shukla & Anr. v. The State of Uttar
Whether the order passed by the High Court refusing to discharge the accused in a criminal case and quashi ng an FIR calls for interference.
-
Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
In a case primarily involving a dying declaration in addition to the ocular and circumstantial evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the appellants-accused along with other accused per sons, whether the High Court was…
-
Harvinder Singh @ Bachhu v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellant for murder and attempt to rape relying on the testimony of the prosecution witnes s despite contradictions, only…
-
Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh
Since the execution of the cheque is, admittedly, not under dispute, the limited question to be considered, is (i) whether the accused can be said to have discharged his ‘evidential burden’, for the courts below to have…
-
H. D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
The question which arose for consideration was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside t he order of acquittal passed by the trial court.
- Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shyam Bihari
- Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr. Pradeep
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- Subramanya v. State of Karnataka
- Ramabora @ Ramaboraiah & Anr v. State of Karnataka
- Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
- Jafarudheen & Ors. v. State of Kerala
- Joseph Stephen and Others v. Santhanasamy and Others
- Geeta Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Rajesh Prasad v. The State of Bihar and Anr. Etc.
- Mohan @Srinivas @Seena @Tailor Seena v. The State of Karnataka
- Hariram Bhambhi v. Sc/St
- Brijesh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
- Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Jayamma & Anr v. State of Karnataka
- Guru Dutt Pathak v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Rajendra @ Rajappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Nagabhushan v. The State of Karnataka
- M/S. Kalamani Tex & Anr v. P. Balasubramanian
- N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Chaman Lal v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Sandeep Kumar and Others v. State of Uttarakhand and Another
- Anwar Ali and Another v. The State of Himachal Pradesh
- Jeet Ram v. The Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh
- State of Uttarakhand v. Darshan Singh
- Naval Kishore Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
- State of Maharashtra v. Shankar Ganapati Rahatol & Ors.
- Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) Represented Through Legal Representatives v. The State of Karnataka & Ors.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anil Kumar @ Badka & Ors.
- Delhi Administration v. Vidya Gupta
- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Pankaj Arora (Secretary) and Others
- Roopendra Singh v. State of Tripura & Anr.
- Ganesh Shamrao Andekar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
- State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors.
- Ramesh and Others v. State of Haryana
- State of Rajasthan v. Firoz Khan @ Arif Khan
- V. Sejappa v. The State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga
- Khumbaram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Satyapal Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors.
- Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh v. Vijay D. Salvi
- Vijay Pal Singh and Others v. State of Utiarakhand
- J.V. Baharuni & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- State of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay
- Ramaiah @ Rama v. State of Karnataka
- Narinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- Suryakant Dadasaheb Bitale v. Dilip Bajrang Kale & Anr.
- Basappa v. State of Karnataka
- Suresh Kumar v. State of Haryana
- Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
- Prem Singh v. State of Haryana
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Giriraj Dubey
- Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration)
- Mookkiah v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu
- Murugesan and Ors. v. State Through Inspector of Police
- Govindaraju@ Govinda v. State by Sriramapuram P.S. & Anr.
- Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David
- Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
- C. Magesh and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- M.C. Ali and Anr. v. State of Kerala
- Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar & Anr.
- State of U.P. v. Guru Charan & Others
- Ram Singh @ Chhaju v. State of H.P.
- State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors.
- Jayabalan v. U.T. of Pondicherry
- Md. Ankoos & Ors. v. The Public Prosecutor, H!Gh Court of A.P.
- Raj Narain Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Chikkarangaiah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Mani Ben v. State of Gujarat
- Champaben Govindbhai v. Popatbhai Manilal and Others
- K. Ramachandran v. V.N. Rajan & Anr.
- Perla Somasekhara Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. Rep. by Public Prosecutor
- State of Rajasthan v. Yusuf
- Nepal Singh v. State of Haryana
- State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal
- Mahtab Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.
- Akhtar & Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal
- Razak Jinnesab Karajagi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Bhaskar Ramappa Madar and Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan
- Sripathi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
- State of U.P. v. Dinesh