Case Background
The dispute started with a complaint filed by the informant, Santosh Kumar Singh, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
On the basis of this complaint, the Chief Judicial Magistrate directed that a First Information Report (FIR) be registered against the present petitioner.
Following this direction, Khajanchi Hat Police Station Case No. 300 of 1997 was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The police investigated the case and it proceeded to trial before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea, in G.R. Case No. 1477 of 1997.
During the trial, charges were finally framed against the accused (present petitioner) only under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
After the trial, by judgment dated 31.07.2013, the Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Purnea, Shri Ajay Kumar) acquitted the petitioner of the charges.
Feeling aggrieved by this acquittal, the informant, Santosh Kumar Singh (Opposite Party No. 2 in the High Court), did not file an appeal. Instead, he filed a Criminal Revision No. 473 of 2013 before the Sessions Court, Purnea. This revision was registered as CIS No. 647 of 2013 and later transferred to the court of the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea, for disposal.
On 13.12.2021, the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea passed a final order in the revision. The Sessions Court set aside the acquittal judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court to pass a fresh judgment.
It was this revisional order of 13.12.2021 that the accused (petitioner) challenged before the Patna High Court by filing Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2022.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, through Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar, heard arguments from the counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State, and the counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 (the informant).
The core question before the High Court was not whether the original acquittal was correct on facts, but whether the Sessions Court had followed the correct legal procedure when it entertained the informant’s criminal revision and set aside the acquittal.
The petitioner’s counsel focused on maintainability. He argued that after the Trial Court had acquitted the accused on 31.07.2013, the law did not permit the informant/victim to challenge that order by filing a criminal revision before the Sessions Court.
He pointed to the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., which grants a right of appeal to the victim against an order of acquittal. According to him, once the law provides a remedy of appeal, that is the remedy which must be used.
He further relied on Section 401(4) Cr.P.C., which clearly says that when an appeal lies from any judgment or order, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.
In this case, since an appeal against the acquittal of the petitioner was available to the informant under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., the informant could not lawfully maintain a revision petition. Therefore, the revisional proceedings before the Sessions Court itself were defective and not maintainable.
The petitioner’s counsel also pointed out another legal defect. He informed the High Court that the Additional Sessions Judge, in the final order dated 13.12.2021, observed that the criminal revision was being “treated as appeal”. However, this treatment came only in the final judgment, and there was no prior order converting the revision into an appeal before hearing it as such.
Under Section 401(5) Cr.P.C., a revisional court has the power in certain situations to treat a revision as an appeal, provided that an appeal could have been filed but was not. However, the law expects that such conversion be made at a proper stage through a specific order, and then the case should be dealt with following the procedure applicable to criminal appeals.
According to the petitioner, this was not done. There was no earlier order of conversion, and the case proceeded throughout as a revision. Only in the final order did the Additional Sessions Judge describe it as an appeal, which, the petitioner argued, was not legally sustainable.
The petitioner’s counsel further argued that the Additional Sessions Judge-V was not the proper authority to decide on such a conversion in the manner done. The Sessions Judge should have first permitted conversion, the matter should have been registered as a criminal appeal and admitted as such, and only then could any Additional Sessions Judge have heard and decided it as an appeal.
On these grounds, the petitioner submitted that the entire revisional proceeding before the Sessions Court suffered from “gross illegality” and the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 should be set aside.
At this stage in the hearing before the High Court, the counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 (the informant) sought liberty to file a proper criminal appeal before the Sessions Court against the acquittal.
The petitioner’s counsel raised no objection to such liberty being granted, so long as the illegal revisional order was quashed.
Having considered the submissions, the Patna High Court accepted the legal objection raised by the petitioner. The Court held that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge-V had been passed in a criminal revision which itself was not maintainable, as an appeal was the correct remedy under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and Section 401(4) Cr.P.C. barred entertaining a revision when an appeal lies.
The High Court also noted the improper way in which the Additional Sessions Judge had “treated” the revision as an appeal only in the final order, without earlier conversion and without following the proper procedure for hearing criminal appeals under Section 401(5) Cr.P.C.
On this basis, the High Court concluded that the impugned revisional order could not stand.
Accordingly, by its oral judgment dated 24.03.2025, the Patna High Court allowed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner. The Court set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea, in Criminal Revision No. 473 of 2013, CIS No. 647 of 2013.
At the same time, the High Court balanced the rights of the informant. It granted liberty to Opposite Party No. 2 (the informant) to file a fresh criminal appeal before the Sessions Court against the acquittal, subject to the Limitation Act.
The Court specifically directed that the lower court, while considering limitation, must also take into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Section 14 allows exclusion of the time spent in a previous proceeding that failed due to a defect of jurisdiction or other cause of like nature, provided the earlier case was pursued in good faith.
This direction is important for the informant, because a considerable period has already passed since the original acquittal of 31.07.2013 and since the revisional order dated 13.12.2021. The informant will now have to file an appeal, and the Sessions Court will decide whether the appeal is within limitation or whether the delay can be condoned, keeping Section 14 in mind.
Thus, the final outcome is: the original acquittal by the Trial Court stands restored for the time being; the illegal revisional order setting aside the acquittal is quashed; and the informant still has a chance to challenge the acquittal through the correct legal remedy of appeal.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment of the Patna High Court is significant for victims, informants and lawyers dealing with criminal cases where an accused has been acquitted.
First, it clearly reinforces that when the law gives a right of appeal to the victim against an acquittal under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C., that is the proper and primary remedy. Filing a revision in such situations is not appropriate and may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
Second, the judgment explains that a revisional court cannot casually “treat” a revision as an appeal in the final outcome. There must be a clear, prior order converting the proceeding, and then the court must follow the full procedure of hearing a criminal appeal as per law.
For laypersons, the case shows that if they are dissatisfied with an acquittal, they should consult about filing an appeal and not a revision, especially where the Cr.P.C. specifically provides such appeal rights.
At the same time, the High Court has ensured that the informant is not left remediless. By granting liberty to file an appeal and asking the Sessions Court to consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the Court has recognised that time was lost in a wrong forum and that this period should not automatically defeat the informant’s rights.
For trial and appellate courts, the judgment sends a message to strictly observe the limits of revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 Cr.P.C. and to avoid bypassing the statutory appeal structure.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether a criminal revision by the informant against an order of acquittal was maintainable when a victim’s appeal lay under the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.?
Answer: No. In view of Section 401(4) Cr.P.C., when an appeal lies against an order of acquittal, a revision at the instance of the person entitled to appeal is not maintainable. - Issue: Whether the Additional Sessions Judge could, in the final order, treat the criminal revision as a criminal appeal without a prior conversion order and without following appeal procedure under Section 401(5) Cr.P.C.?
Answer: No. The High Court held that such treatment in the final judgment, without prior conversion and proper procedure, was not sustainable in law, amounting to gross illegality. - Issue: What relief should be granted when the revisional order setting aside an acquittal is found illegal, but the informant wishes to challenge the acquittal properly?
Answer: The High Court set aside the revisional order, allowed the accused’s revision, and granted liberty to the informant to file a fresh criminal appeal before the Sessions Court, directing that limitation be decided with due consideration of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
Cases Cited by the Court
- No prior case law is cited or expressly relied upon in the judgment text provided.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 135 of 2022 (Patna High Court); arising out of Khajanchi Hat P.S. Case No. 300 of 1997; G.R. Case No. 1477 of 1997; Criminal Revision No. 473 of 2013, CIS No. 647 of 2013 (Sessions Court, Purnea).
Case Title: Kaku Sood @ Kukku Sood @ Cuckoo Sood @ Coocko Sood vs. The State of Bihar & Santosh Kumar Singh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Citation: 2025 (2) PLJR 803
Advocates:
- For the Petitioner: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate; Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate.
- For the State: Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP.
- For Opposite Party No. 2 (Informant): Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Criminal revision before the Patna High Court challenging an order passed in a criminal revision by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Purnea, which had set aside an acquittal and remanded the matter. The High Court’s decision primarily concerns maintainability of revision versus appeal against an acquittal.
Link to judgement ; https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMxMzUjMjAyMiMxI04=-PqGHcO3VnhM=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
