CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

GAYA-823001

LAW OF CRIME- II

APPEAL- CONCEPT, MEANING AND EXCEPTIONS

Under the Supervision of – DR. PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA

Associate Professor,
School of Law & Governance,
Central University of South Bihar

Submitted By -
MEENAKSHI PRIYA
B.A. LL. B (Hons.) – 4TH Semester
Enrolment No. - CUSB1613125031

Page 1 of 14
 CHAPTERIZATION

 ABSTRACT

 INTRODUCTION

 HISTORY OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

 Origin of the Right to Appeal

 MEANING OF APPEAL

 FUNCTIONS OF APPEAL

 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

 Serious error
 Insufficient weight of evidence

 APPEAL FROM CONVICTION

 Appeal to the Supreme Court
 Appeal to the High Court
 Appeal to the Court of Session
 Special Right of Appeal in certain Cases

 EXCEPTION OF APPEAL

 JUDICIAL DECISIONS

 CONCLUSION

Page 2 of 14
 APPEAL

1. ABSTRACT

As it said that no man is perfect so judgment given by human is not always infallible. Despite
all the provisions for ensuring a fair trial and a just decision, mistakes are possible and errors
cannot be ruled out. Therefore, the Criminal Procedure Code provides the concept of appeal
and revision and thereby enables the superior courts to review and correct the decisions of the
lower courts.
Apart from review concept, this procedure serves another important purpose. This is also that
by appeal the decision process of the lower court is duly scrutinized by the superior courts and
it also gives certain satisfaction to the parties.
Appeal is one of the two important review procedures. But there are numbers of cases where
appeals are not allowed or there are some exceptions of appeal. So in this chapter I’m going to
deal with the concept, meaning, importance and exceptions of appeal.

2. INTRODUCTION

The term “appeal” has not been defined in the Code. According to the dictionary meaning, an
appeal is a complaint or grievance to a superior court for reconsideration or review of a
decision, verdict or sentence of a lower court. It has been said that every human being is fallible
and can make mistakes so a judge is not an exception. Therefore it is possible that even a Judges
can also commits a mistake in his decision and his decision might be wrong. Article 25 of the
Constitution of India guarantees life and liberty to every citizen, small or big, rich or poor, as
one of the Fundamental Rights. It is therefore, necessary that a person aggrieved by an order
of the court of the first instance may be able to challenge it by preferring an appeal. An appeal
is a method of correction of manly error or solution of human frailty.
Appeal is not only for the wrong decision of the Court but it is also made to satisfy the party.
Party may not be satisfied by the judgement given by the lower Court. So to satisfy himself he
may move further to the superior court through appeal. Though this process is useful to satisfy
the parties but it is very time taking process.
The Supreme Court stands out to be the apex Court in India. It is the highest Court of appeal
in India. Any judgement given by the Supreme Court may not be go for appeal in any other
Court except the mercy petition. Mercy petition on death penalty give by the Judges of the
Supreme Court can go on the appeal for the President. But there are many exceptions of the
appeal petition also.

Page 3 of 14
 3. HISTORY OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Today, criminal appeals are a feature of both common law and civil law jurisdictions. However,
this contemporary situation belies the very different streams of development that flowed in
each system.
ORIGINS OF THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
The criminal appeal, in the common law world, is of recent origin. In England, the United
States, and Canada, the proposition that those convicted of crimes should have the right to
challenge their convictions only took root around the turn of the twentieth century.
While criminal appeals were unknown to the common law for centuries, various archaic forms
of review were available to defendants.1 Some appreciation of these methods of control—and
their flaws provides crucial context for the eventual creation of a right to appeal.
The earliest methods of review directly targeted the jury itself. Indeed, Langbein has argued
that a desire to control juries drove much of the common law’s development.2 During the
medieval period, jury verdicts could be quashed through a process known as attaint.3 A second
jury, with twice as many members, was empanelled to review the verdict.4 If reversed,
members of the original jury received “savage penalties.”5 This process was, however, not
available to criminal defendants and was very rarely used in criminal cases.6
During the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the practice of fining jurors became common.
The Star Chamber, which was responsible for protecting against abuse of the legal system, 7
regularly fined jurors for bringing in acquittals against the weight of the evidence.8 The
presumption seems to have been that such findings could only be the result of bribery or
corruption.9 In Bushell’s Case, following the abolition of the Star Chamber, the courts ended
this practice.10
In the seventeenth century, the discretion to order a new trial already well established for civil
cases11 became available in certain criminal cases. The process for deciding whether to order a
new trial permitted review on broad grounds, which included misdirection and that the verdict
was against the evidence.12 However, a new trial could only be sought in a very narrow range

1
Benjamin L. Berger, Criminal Appeals as Jury Control: Anglo-Canadian Historical Perspectives on the Rise of
Criminal Appeals, 10 CAN. CRIM. L. REV. 1, 34 (2005).
2
JOHN H. LANGBEIN, RENÉE LETTOW LERNER & BRUCE P. SMITH, HISTORY OF THE COMMON
LAW: THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANGLO-AMERICAN LEGAL INSTITUTIONS 416 (2009).
3
Id at 418
4
Id.
5
Id
6
Id
7
Id
8
Id
9
Id
10
Bushell’s Case, (1670) 124 Eng. Rep. 1006 (CP).
11
Supra note 1.
12
Id

Page 4 of 14
of cases.13 Felonies were entirely excluded. And for misdemeanors, the process was restricted
to the small number of cases heard nisi prius.14
It was the only means by which the record in a criminal case could be considered by a higher
court after judgment.15 The writ of error, a close relation of certiorari, issued from a superior
court for the purpose of “reviewing and correcting the record of proceedings in an inferior
court.”16 The greatest limitation was that review was restricted to errors appearing on the face
of the trial record, a sparse collection of formalistic documents: the judge’s commission, the
indictment, the defendant’s plea, the verdict and any entries made in the minute book.17 Review
was thus effectively restricted to procedural errors and errors in the indictment.18 It was not
possible to challenge evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the factual basis for conviction.19
This is not to say that verdicts were inevitably upheld. Nevertheless, as Stephen lamented, “the
grossest errors of fact or of law could occur without being in any way brought upon the record”
and were thus not capable of being challenged.20
The writ of error became all but obsolete in 1848,21 with the establishment of the Court for
Crown Cases Reserved.22 This Court formalized an ancient custom that had developed whereby
the judges of the superior courts met informally at the Serjeant’s Inn to consider questions of
law reserved by trial judges.23 Because those judges were not sitting as a court, their decision
was treated as that of the trial judge, and reasons were not required.24 In contrast, the Court of
Crown Cases Reserved sat in public and issued reasoned decisions. Recourse, however,
remained at the discretion of the trial judge, who had to decide to state a case for the Court’s
opinion,25 and review remained restricted to questions of law and could not encompass the
reasonableness of the verdict.26 Because of these limitations, the Court was sparingly used,27
averaging only eight cases per year.28
During the second half of the nineteenth century, pressure began to build for a right to appeal
in criminal cases. Between 1844 and 1906, thirty one bills concerning appeals were introduced
to Parliament, but only one, limited to appeals on questions of law, was enacted. Calls for

13
Marc M. Arkin, Rethinking the Constitutional Right to a Criminal Appeal, 39 U.C.L.A. L. REV. 503, 532-33
(1991).
14
In civil cases, pleaded questions of fact could only be answered by local juries. But by the fourteenth century,
all three common law courts, together with the Chancery department, sat in Westminster. The court in which the
case was pleaded would therefore issue a writ to the local sheriff, ordering him to summon a jury and have them
empanelled in Westminster. In practice, however, the trial would be conducted locally in front of a circuit judge,
who would then report the verdict back to the central court to enter judgment.
15
Lester B. Orfield, History of Criminal Appeal in England, 1 MO. L. REV. 326, 327 (1936).
16
Supra note 2.
17
Supra note 15.
18
Supra note 1.
19
Supra note 15.
20
Supra note 1.
21
Because the Court had the ability to hear cases that could be the subject of the writ, it was thereafter rarely used.
PATTENDEN, supra note 4, at 9 and n.34.
22
Id.
23
Supra note 15.
24
Id
25
Indeed, because references were made by the trial judge himself, those most in need of correction were often
the most reluctant to expose themselves to reversal.
26
Supra note 15.
27
Supra note 1.
28
Supra note 15.

Page 5 of 14
change came from a number of quarters. Jeremy Bentham, the influential English reformer,
advocated extending the right to appeal to criminal cases as part of his mission to rationalize
the common law.29 Members of the profession supported this proposal, but for different
reasons. Their primary concern was that wrongful convictions were not rare occurrences.
Bentham’s rationale also appeared, with reformers frequently pointing out the absurdity of
appeals being permitted in civil cases, where only money was at stake, but not in criminal
cases, where life and liberty were in jeopardy.30
There was also significant opposition to a right of appeal. English judges were the most
influential opponents. The central pillar of their opposition was the assertion that wrongful
convictions were extremely rare.31
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the central pillar of the judicial opposition to a right
of appeal was fractured by two notorious miscarriages of justice: the wrongful convictions of
Adolf Beck and George Edalji.32 In 1891, Beck was convicted of, and served seven years’
penal servitude for, frauds committed by another man, Thomas Smith. At trial, the prosecution
relied on the assertion that, fourteen years earlier, Beck had committed similar frauds. The trial
judge prevented the defense from challenging this plank of the prosecution case, despite the
reality that it was Smith who had been convicted of those crimes. The judge also refused to
reserve this question of law for the Court for Crown Cases Reserved. While in prison, Beck
unsuccessfully petitioned the Home Office sixteen times to re-examine the convictions, even
presenting potentially exculpatory fresh evidence. Three years after being released, Beck was
again wrongly convicted of Smith’s frauds. His misfortune eventually ended when, prior to
sentencing, Smith was arrested attempting to pawn a stolen ring and confessed to all of the
crimes. Beck finally obtained pardons and compensation from the Government.33
A few years later, a second miscarriage of justice came to public prominence. In 1903, George
Edalji, long a target of racial prejudice, was convicted, on the basis of anonymous letters, of
disembowelling a horse. Despite substantial evidence suggesting his innocence, he served three
years in prison. Pleas to the Home Office were unsuccessful, including a petition signed by
10,000 people. Public pressure, however, continued to swell. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle took up
the case, publishing two long articles arguing for Edalji’s innocence. Finally, in 1907, after a
special inquiry and further pressure, Edalji was pardoned.34
The Beck and Edalji debacles, together with other controversial convictions, finally produced
the necessary political support for a right of criminal appeal. By this point in history, Pattenden
observes, “retrial by newspaper had become so prevalent that public confidence in the courts
was being undermined.” An appeal on questions of fact was seen as urgently required. Petitions
to the Home Office and ad hoc committees of inquiry had proved ineffective.35
In 1907, the Criminal Appeal Act was passed.36 The Act established the Court of Criminal
Appeal, which absorbed the jurisdiction of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and it
29
Supra note 1.
30
Id
31
Supra note 1.
32
For full discussion of the Beck and Edalji cases.
33
Id
34
Id
35
Id
36
Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, 7 Edw. 7, c. 23, § 20(1) (Eng.).

Page 6 of 14
abolished both writs of error and the High Court’s power to grant new trials. 37 Appeals under
the Act were broad in both scope and jurisdiction: appeals were available to all persons
convicted on indictment, information or inquisition; review of one’s conviction was permitted
as of right on questions of law and with leave on questions of fact and mixed questions of law
and fact; review was permitted, with leave, of the propriety of the sentence imposed; and,
finally, trial judges retained the power to state cases for the opinion of the Court.38

4. MEANING OF APPEAL

Appeal is one of the two important review procedures. An appeal is defined in many places. In
many judicial decision also, the Judges tries to define the term appeal. According to Black Law
Dictionary, an appeal is a complaint to a superior court of an injustice done or error committed
by an inferior one, whose judgement or decision the court above is called upon to correct or
reverse.39
In the case of Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj40 Singh, the court defined an appeal is a
creature of statute and there can be no inherent right of appeal from any judgement or
determination unless an appeal is expressly provided for by the law itself.
The appeal as a corrective procedure would obviously be far less relevant in cases where the
chances of error in the judgement of the trial court are very remote. Further, the review of the
case in appeal means additional time and expense for the final disposal of the case. Therefore
in petty cases where the possible error in the decision of the lower court is more likely to be of
insignificant nature, it would be inexpedient to allow appeals in such cases.
A right of appeal carries with it a right of rehearing on law as also on facts. Generally there is
no right of hearing on facts or appreciation of evidence in a revision.41 A rehearing of the case
could, however, be ordered in exercise of revisional power.42
A person who initiates an appeal is called the appellant and also called the plaintiff in error. He
must file a notice of appeal, along with the necessary documents. The person against whom the
appeal is brought is known as appelee.
There are usually two levels of appeal. One is appeal from the trial court to an intermediate
appellate court and after that the highest appellate court in the jurisdiction. Or the other is going
directly to the superior appellate court for review by passing the intermediate stage.

37
Id
38
CHARLES L. ATTENBOROUGH, PRINCIPLES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW 485-86, 493 (12th ed. 1912).
39
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, (4TH edn.), p. 124.
40
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1954 SC 520.
41
State of kerala v. Sebastian, 1983 Cri LJ 416, 418 (Ker).
42
T.V. Hameed, re, 1986 Cri LJ 1001 (Ker).

Page 7 of 14
 5. FUNCTIONS OF APPEAL

The main and primary function of the right of appeal is to protect against the miscarriage of
justice. Miscarriage arises in two ways. Firstly, an innocent defendant may be wrongfully
convicted. Though there may have reason behind such judgement like fact-finder may fail to
prove the evidence properly, may be misled by irrelevant, prejudicial or fabricated evidence or
exculpatory evidence may not be produced at trial. Secondly a defendant may not have received
a fair trial for a myriad of potential reasons.
The prevention of miscarriages of justice is an individualized concern: appeals are crucial for
ensuring that justice is done in each case. This function of appeals explains their inclusion in
modern human rights instruments. Trechsel has argued that it is the only justification that is of
any relevance to the individual.43 Concerns over equality of treatment may, however, also be
relevant: a criminal defendant has an expectation that he or she will be treated, both
procedurally and substantively, in the same manner as any other defendant. Appellate courts
have an important role to play in ensuring that equality of treatment.
A second function of criminal appeals is to maintain consistency in trial courts.44 Appellate
courts achieve this through two, linked mechanisms. Most obviously, the courts correct
anomalous applications of the law in particular cases. Clarification and guidance are given,
leading to greater consistency in the future application of the law.45 In addition, the very
existence of the right renders appellate oversight likely, which in turn encourages consistency
among trial judges, who know that their decisions may be subject to challenge.46
Third, appeals serve important institutional functions. They provide legitimacy to the criminal
justice system as a whole. Public confidence in the administration of justice increases when
miscarriages do not occur and when courts dispense criminal justice consistently and fairly.47
More basically, appeals are the primary way in which judges, as public officials subject to
oversight, are held accountable for their performance.
Finally, appeals allow questions of law to be settled.48 They provide a forum for ensuring the
proper interpretation, development and application of the criminal law. Appeals have been the
context in which the content of defendants’ rights, the proper application of rules of evidence,
and the scope of substantive offenses and defences have all been developed.

43
STEFAN TRECHSEL, HUMAN RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS 362 (2005) (“International
human-rights law is not concerned with the uniform and correct application of national law . . . .”).
44
Lester B. Orfield, The Right of Appeal in Criminal Cases, 34 MICH. L. REV. 937, 938 (1936).
45
A good example is sentencing guideline judgments, in which an appellate court sets out appropriate sentencing
“bands” and the proper factors to be considered in placing an individual case within a band. E.g., R. v A.M.
(CA27/2009) [2010] NZCA 114 at para [6-16] William Young P & Ellen France J for the Court (N.Z.).
46
Patrick David Hansen, Stacking Appellate Dissents: Due Process in the Appellate Arena, 18 VAL. U. L. REV.
141, 144 (1983); Nathan A. Smyth, The Limitation of the Right of Appeal in Criminal Cases, 17 HARV. L. REV.
317, 317 (1903).
47
Supra note 46.
48
Orfield, supra note 44, at 938-39; Hansen, supra note 46, at 146-49.

Page 8 of 14
 6. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

There are two main grounds for which an appeal may be filed:
(1) A serious error was made at any point during the trial,
(2) The evidence presented clearly does not support the verdict.

6.1. SERIOUS ERROR

Serious errors also known as “reversible errors,” must have infringed upon the rights of a
defendant (or either party in a civil lawsuit) in order for the appellate court to consider them.
Harmless errors are those errors made that do not have any effect on the case, and therefore do
not provide grounds for appeal. When the appellant requests an appeal based on plain or
reversible error, he must show that (1) an error was made, (2) that the error was clear or
obvious, and (3) that the error interfered with the rights of the defendant, or substantially
affected the verdict.
For example, after Mr. A was convicted of assault, and the sentence was handed down, his
attorney files an appeal because the trial judge refused to allow Mr. A to represent himself
during the trial. Self-representation may not be a good idea for everyone but is a fundamental
right. The appellate judge reversed the trial court’s decision based on this serious error and
ordered a new trial. The same would be true if Mr. A had not been offered representation at all,
as all defendants are entitled to representation, even if they cannot afford to hire an attorney. If
a defendant cannot afford an attorney, the court is required to assign a public defender to
represent him.

6.2. INSUFFICIENT WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

An appeal based on insufficient weight of evidence is much harder to prove. Since the appellate
court does not hear all of the testimony during the previous trial or view all evidence presented
on appeal, it cannot necessarily make a fully unbiased decision. Because of this, most appellate
courts weigh their decision based on their confidence in the trial court’s decision.

Page 9 of 14
 7. APPEAL FROM CONVICTION

7.1. APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT

In supreme Court any person can go to the appeal. Being the apex court, Supreme Court is the
highest Court where people go for an appeal. The following are the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court in criminal cases.
According to Section 374 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, any person convicted on a trial held
by extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction of High Court can appeal to Supreme Court.
Since such trials are extremely rare, it was felt that, in the interests of finality to the proceedings
appeal should lie direct to the Supreme Court and not to another bench of the same High Court.
According to Section 379, where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of acquittal
of an accused person and convicted him and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life
or to imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, he may appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Constitution provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgement,
decree or final order of a High Court, if the High Court certifies that the case involves
substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. [Art. 132 (1)] Further,
where the High Court has refused to give such a certificate the Supreme Court may, if it is
satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the
Constitution, grant special leave to appeal from such judgement, decree or final order. [Art.
132 (2)] Where such a certificate is given, or such leave is granted, any party in the case may
appeal to the Supreme Court, on any other ground. [Article 132 (3)].
Article 134 (1) of the Constitution, inter alia, provides that an appeal shall lie to the Supreme
Court from any judgement, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court, if
the High Court:
(i) Has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to its
authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to
death; or
(ii) Certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Article 136 (1) of the Constitution provides that the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any Court or tribunal.
However the above rule shall not apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the armed
forces as mentioned under Article 136 (2) of the Constitution.
It has been reiterated by the Supreme Court that in cases which do not come under clause (a)
and (b) of Article 134 (1) or under the Act of 1970 or Section 379 of the code an appeal does
not lie as of right to the Supreme Court against any order of conviction by the High Court. In
such cases appeal will lie only if a certificate is granted by the High Court under Article 134

Page 10 of 14
(1) (c) certifying that the case is fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court or by way of Special
leave under Article 136 when the certificate is refused by the High Court.49

7.2. APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT

In High Court any person can go to the appeal. Being the intermediate court, High Court is the
Court where people go for an appeal. The following are the appellate jurisdiction of the High
Court in criminal cases.
According to Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., any person convicted on a trial held by a session Judge
or an additional Judge or on a trial held by any other court in which a sentence of imprisonment
for more than seven years has been passed against him or against any person convicted on the
same trial may appeal to the High Court. And in that case the judgement can be stayed
suspended pending appeal.50
In a case where the trial is held by an Assistant Sessions Judge and during the trial the judge is
invested with the powers of the Additional Session Judge or of the Session Judge, a question
might arise as to whether an appeal from an order of conviction in such a trial shall lie to the
High Court. Courts are not unanimous on this point. In a case where the Assistant Session
Judge, after he had recorded the evidence in Court and heard the arguments but before he had
written and delivered the judgement was invested with the powers of an Additional Session
Judge, the Allahabad High Court held that an appeal from conviction in the case would lie to
the Session Judge and not to the High Court as the accused was convicted on a trial held by
Assistant Sessions Judge and not by an Additional Session Judge. The fact that the Assistant
Sessions Judge had become the Additional Session Judge when he wrote and delivered the
judgement would not affect that position.51
In a case tried and acquitted by the Magistrates’ Court on appeal by the State, the High Court
recorded conviction and sent the case on the trial court, to the Session Court was held not
maintainable as the conviction part was non-appealable to the Session Court.52

7.3. APPEAL TO THE COURT OF SESSION

According to Section 374 (3) (a) of this Code, any person convicted on a trial by a Metropolitan
Magistrate or Assistant Session Judge or Magistrate of the First Class, or the Second Class may
appeal to the Court of Session.
According to Section 374 (3) (b) of this Code, any sentence under Section 325, i.e., Procedure
when Magistrate can not pass sentence sufficiently severe, may appeal to the Court of Session.

49
Chandra Mohan Tiwari v. State of M.P.,(1992) 2 SCC 105; Ganga Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar,
(2005) 6 SCC 211; State of U.P. v. Guru Charan, (2010) 3 SCC 721.
50
V. Sundararami Reddy v. State, 1990 Cri. LJ. 167 (All); S.M. Malik v. State 1990 Cri. LJ 1919 (Del).
51
Bakshi Ram v. Emperor, AIR 1938 All 102.
52
C. Gopinathan v. Krishnan Ayyappan, 1991 Cri LJ 778 (Ker).

Page 11 of 14
According to Section 374 (3) (c) of this Code, any person in respect of whom an order has been
made or a sentence has been passed under Section 360, i.e., order to release on probation of
good conduct or after admonition, by any Magistrate, may appeal to the Court of Session.

7.4. SPECIAL RIGHT OF APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES

According to Section 380 of this Criminal Code, notwithstanding anything contained in this
chapter, when more persons than one is convicted in one trial, and an appealable judgement or
order has been passed in respect of any of such person, all or any of the persons convicted at
such trial shall have a right of appeal.

8. EXCEPTION OF APPEAL
Consistent with the general rule that “no right to appeal unless specifically provided by law”,
according to Section 372, no appeal can be taken on any judgement or order of a Criminal
Court except those provide in this Code. The Code has made definite provisions regarding the
circumstances in which an appeal shall lie. However, these provisions have been delimited by
disallowing categorically the right of appeal in certain cases. It will be convenient to consider
those cases first.
1. No appeal in petty cases. – According to Section 376, there shall be no appeal by a
convicted person in the following cases:
a. Where the only sentence is one of imprisonment up to six months, or of fine up to
₹1000 or of both, and is passed by a High Court.
b. Where the only sentence is one of imprisonment up to three months, or of fine up
to ₹200 or of both, and is passed by a Sessions Court or a Metropolitan Magistrate.
c. Where the only sentence is one of fine up to ₹100 and is passed by a Magistrate of
the first class.
d. Where the only sentence is one of fine up to ₹200 and is passed in a summary trial
by a Chief Judicial Magistrate, a Metropolitan Magistrate, or a Magistrate of the
first class specially empowered by the High Court.
It may be noted that even in the above cases an appeal may be brought if any other punishment
is combined with any such sentence. However, such sentence shall not be appealable merely
on the ground
a. That the person convicted is ordered to furnish security to keep the peace; or
b. That a direction for imprisonment in default of payment of fine is included in the
sentence; or
c. That more than one sentence of fine is passed in the case, if the total amount of fine
does not exceed the amount hereinbefore specified in respect of the case.

2. No appeal from conviction on plea of guilty. – According to Section 375, where an

accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea, there shall be
no appeal.

Page 12 of 14
 a. If the conviction is by a High Court; or
b. It the conviction is by a Session Court, Metropolitan Magistrate, or Magistrate of
the first or second class, except as to the extent or legality of the sentence.
When a person is convicted by any court on the basis of his own plea of guilty, he cannot and
should not have any grouse against the conviction and hence is not entitled to appeal from such
a conviction. The accused can be said to have pleaded guilty only when he pleads guilty to the
facts contributing ingredients of the offence without adding anything external to it.53 If the plea
of guilty is not a real one and is obtained by trickery, it is not a plea of guilt for the purposes of
the above rule. A person, by pleading guilty, does not commit himself to accept the punishment
that would be passed by the Court. Therefore, he is not denied the right to challenge the extent
or legality of the sentence. But even this limited right of appeal is not allowed in such a case if
the sentence is passed by a High Court. Because in that case the sentence is likely to suffer any
serious infirmity.

9. JUDICIAL DECISION

In Akalu v. Ram Deo54, it was held that, ‘A right of Appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It
is a statutory right and must be governed by the statute which grants it.’
In Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh55, it was held that, when the view taken by Session
Judge was found by High Court to be manifestly wrong and that it had led to miscarriage of
justice, High Court was entitled to set aside the acquittal.
In St. of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chauhan56, leave to appeal refused by the High
Court without giving any reason liable to be set aside.
In Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. St. of Gujrat57, it was held that, when two views are possible
and acquittal judgement of trial court in murder case found reasonable, High Court not justified
in taking different view with that trial court. It was also held that sufficient cause must be
established for not filing appeal within limitation period and that cause must arise before expiry
of limitation period.
In St. of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli58 , it was held that in an appeal against acquittal
the appellant court has the undoubted power to review the entire evidence and to come to its
own conclusion, but, in doing so , it should not only consider every matter on record having a
bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order
of acquittal but also should express the reasons in its judgement which let it to hold that the
acquittal was not justified.

53
State of Gujrat v. Dineshchandra Harjibhai Patel, 1994 Cri. LJ 1393 (Guj).
54
Akalu v. Ram Deo, AIR 1973 SC 2145.
55
Arun Kumar v. St. of U.P.,AIR 1989 SC 1445
56
St. Of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chauhan, AIR 1982 SC 1215.
57
Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. St. of Gujrat, AIR 1981 SC 733.
58
St. of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom.).

Page 13 of 14
 10. CONCLUSION

An appeal is a creature of statute and the power and jurisdiction of the appellate court must be
circumscribed by the words of the statute. At the same time, a court of appeal is a ‘court of
error’ and its normal function is to correct the decision appealed from if necessary, and its
jurisdiction should be co-extensive with that of the trial court. It cannot and ought not to do
something which the trial court was not competent to do.
Appeal is not only for the wrong decision of the Court but it is also made to satisfy the party.
Party may not be satisfied by the judgement given by the lower Court. So to satisfy himself he
may move further to the superior court through appeal. Though this process is useful to satisfy
the parties but it is very time taking process.
The Supreme Court stands out to be the apex Court in India. It is the highest Court of appeal
in India. Any judgement given by the Supreme Court may not be go for appeal in any other
Court except the mercy petition. Mercy petition on death penalty give by the Judges of the
Supreme Court can go on the appeal for the President. But there are many exceptions of the
appeal petition also.

Page 14 of 14